Gays Make Right Turn

Front Page Magazine ^ | October 18, 2002 | Joseph J. Sabia

[M 91 u2 K]

During the last year, political pundits have spent a great deal of time discussing American Jews' growing support for President Bush and the Republican Party. In particular, writers at the Weekly Standard and National Review have written at length about how Republicans are wooing traditional Democratic Jews into the conservative fold. Most agree that the shift can be attributed to Jews' support for the Bush Doctrine, especially as it applies to the current Arab-Israeli conflict. But there is another significant political shift that has been largely ignored by most analysts — the rightward shift of American gays.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, there was open acrimony between gay voters and the Republican Party. Some of these hard feelings stemmed from the liberal press' distortion of Patrick Buchanan's famous "culture war" convention speech. In that speech, Buchanan mentioned gay rights two times - first, when he referenced that the Democratic Party would not permit pro-life Governor Robert Casey to address delegates at their convention, but would allow "a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement" to speak, and second, when he announced his opposition to state-sanctioned gay marriage.

While the latter reference ruffled the feathers of some gays, it was hardly a call for jihad by the Republican Party (especially since the Democratic Party had also adopted an anti-gay marriage position). Nonetheless, the press - along with militant leftist gay leaders — was able to scare mainstream gays into believing that a second Krystallnacht was right around the corner if President George H.W. Bush were re-elected.

In 1996, Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole returned a $1000 check that his campaign had received from the openly gay Log Cabin Republicans. Apparently, he thought that such an action would solidify his support among some socially conservative Republican voters. The strategy backfired and little came of the entire affair, other than some unnecessary bad press.

By the 2000 campaign, gay rights issues were not discussed by the two major parties because each had virtually identical positions. Both Al Gore and George Bush endorsed the Defense of Marriage Act and Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman voiced opposition to discrimination against gays in the workplace.

Despite the difference in tenor of the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential campaigns, the proportion of self-identified gays voting for Republicans has steadily increased. Self-identified gays have represented between 4% to 5% of all voters during the last four election cycles, a proportion double that of American Jews. In 1998, 4.2% of voters were self-identified gays (a figure likely to be understated due to the personal nature of one's sexual orientation) while 2.6% of voters were Jews.

In 1992, 23% of gays voted for the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. That figure increased to 26% in 1994, 28% in 1996, and 33% in 1998. In 2000, over one-fourth of all self-identified gays voted for an unabashed economic and social conservative, George W. Bush. Though no polls have been released since September 11, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that gays are extremely supportive of the war on terrorism and are identifying more with center-right politicians than the usual neo-socialist busybodies offered by the Democrats.

Why are gays marching rightward in their political affiliations? Four key explanations come to mind:

(1) Greater understanding of the role of free markets in curing AIDS.

Recent technological advancements in medicine have resulted in the development of cocktail drugs that have increased both the life expectancy and quality of life of individuals living with AIDS. These drugs have been especially beneficial to American gays, who have higher rates of HIV infection than other demographic groups. Gays understand that the primary reason why these drugs are now available is the existence of our free market economy.

In a free market, a private pharmaceutical firm has a profit-incentive to develop an AIDS drug if there is consumer demand for that product. This is precisely what we observed in the 1990s. Firms were willing to invest in these life-saving drugs knowing that they would have the opportunity to earn a profit from their sales.

Today, there are radical gay leftists who wish to remove these incentives. Jon Bell, from Act-Up Philadelphia, recently summed up this position:

"All but the wealthiest will continue to have no access to life-saving medicine. The only acceptable plan from industry will guarantee affordability through cuts of 95% or more of the prices we pay."

If Mr. Bell were to get his wish, pharmaceutical companies would have little or no incentive to invent drugs that could improve the lives of people with AIDS. Though he may believe that his heart is in the right place, the policies he advocates would result in more misery and higher death rates.

American gays are turning away from the harmful, radical health policies advocated by Act-Up because they increasingly understand that the free market is the best hope for the creation of life-saving AIDS drugs. To that end, many gays are throwing their support to the Republican Party because the political right does a better job than the left at protecting the market from government intrusion.

(2) Admiration for President Bush's moral clarity in the war on terrorism.

Leftists have long been blaming America for every social and political ill on the face of the earth. Prior to September 11, organizations like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation (GLAAD) missed no opportunity to whine about the so-called "oppression" of gays in America. They rarely, if ever, spoke of the savage individual rights violations that gays face in the Middle East. Most Arab countries imprison or execute individuals if they are suspected to have engaged in homosexual activity.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban government sanctioned that suspected gays be thrown off of mountaintops or crushed under stone walls. In Egypt, gays are routinely imprisoned, tortured, and killed. After a recent show trial in Saudi Arabia, three gays were beheaded after being charged with "immorality."

What has the HRC and GLADD said about these atrocities? Almost nothing. In fact, many of the leftists affiliated with these organizations have been openly critical of the United States' war on terrorism and the upcoming war in Iraq.

Mainstream gays are beginning to understand that their political leadership is comprised of shrill, socialist anti-Americans who are willing to ally themselves with foreign governments that execute gays in order to enhance their domestic political power. How else can one explain how the HRC and GLAAD can support "zero tolerance" for gay-related hate crimes in America while at the same time finding political solidarity with murderous Islamists and sadistic dictators like Saddam Hussein?

President Bush has provided a clear vision of the necessity to destroy the evildoers in the Middle East before they destroy us. And it is a vision that is increasingly appealing to mainstream gays.

(3) Greater sensitivity to tax policy.

Gay individuals are increasingly becoming the wealthiest taxpayers in the nation. According to the 2000 Census, average household income for gay men is $85,400, more than double the national average (note, however, that this figure does not take into account that gays tend to live in geographic regions with higher costs of living). Moreover, gay households are 3.4 times more likely to have incomes greater than $250,000.

With liberals constantly calling for the rich to be soaked with higher taxes, gay voters are increasingly turning away from the party that wishes to confiscate their wealth. Mainstream gays have a libertarian strand in their philosophy that wishes to keep the state out of their private affairs — that includes their wallets.

A February 2001 nationally representative poll of gays conducted by the Gill Foundation found that 60% of gay Americans rate tax policy as "important to them personally." In addition, a May 2001 Luntz poll found that 72% of gays agreed that the federal death tax is "discriminatory" and 82% support its repeal. Gays are speaking loud and clear on these economic issues — they prefer smaller government. This is good news for the Republican Party.

(4) A change in the selection of individuals who "come out of the closet."

Surely, one of the reasons for the increase in gay support for Republicans is that those individuals who identify themselves as gay today are different than those who did so, say, 10 years ago. In large part due to public efforts by political pundits like Andrew Sullivan and organizations such as the Independent Gay Forum, self-identified politically active gays are no longer cookie-cutter leftists. Today, right-wing gays are more comfortable "coming out of the closet" and voicing their political views because there are many more public figures who share their positions.

The lessons of the last 10 years reflect that the Republican Party will continue to win the votes of American gays not by pandering to them, but rather by sticking to a consistent philosophy that appeals to all voters - one that emphasizes individual liberty and personal accountability.

[Bush2000]

Work with local political groups to put pressure on the mall owners. Organize pickets. Promote a boycott. Make it more costly for them to operate. That is the right way to go about making change.

[supercat]

My posting explicitly dealt with the OLD Testament rules (you know, the strict ones! LOL!) which came directly from God. The commandments do not prohibit homosexuality, do not promote or prohibit marriage, do not speak to drug or alcohol use, or even spousal abuse, or fighting.

Please tell me your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [RSV]

or Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. [RSV]

Those would seem to be pretty clear and unambiguous condemnations of male homosexual sodomy. Can you suggest any alternative reading?

[Cultural Jihad]

All great ideas. The sine qua non would be to shut down the seditious ACLU.

[Bush2000]

Shutting down the ACLU is much more difficult because they derive their funds from a diverse set of whackos and cretins from across the country. One way to do it would be to outspend them. If you can outpace their fundraising, you can tie them up in litigation knots so badly that they won't be able to afford to continue. That would be my play.

[alwaysconservative]

I just have a little time before getting ready for church, but here goes. I am fully aware of what is said in Leviticus, but this is not part of the 10 commandments from God himself. And what is found in Levitucus certainly seems to be overwritten by God or Jesus himself.

In response to another poster on this thread, I wrote:

"Please explain which of the ten commandments you believe permits us to invade someone else's bedroom? Or perhaps you are thinking of Leviticus, which said that lying with another man was abomination (as is eating shellfish, adultery, seeing your parent naked, wearing clothing made of two fabrics, cutting your facial hair, etc., etc., etc.). The point is, as I have noted in another post, God himself does not seem too concerned with these man-created rules. He gave us the commandments, and He sent His Son to give us the message that belief in Him was more important that the laws of man. Matthew 12:1-8 (Matthew again, which I seem to be quoting a lot tonight!)"

The point is that there are a LOT of rules in Leviticus which are now seen as contrary to Christian love for our fellow man (or woman): condoning or permitting slavery is just one. Despite the injunctions against killing and adultery, God chose Moses (a murderer) for one of His leaders, protected Cain from the wrath of others for killing his brother, and God chose Abram and Sarai to establish His people, despite their knowing adultery, and even look at the story of Ruth and Boaz. Repeatedly we are told, in various ways, including Matthew 12, not to judge others for their conduct and that WE will be judged for our careless and hurtful words and conduct towards others. Whatever happened to "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Why are you (still) trying to impose Old Testament laws after Jesus specifically told the world that He (and what He brought to us) was more important that the laws (Matthew 12:1-8)? When did Jesus (not Paul) EVER condemn homosexuals or prostitutes (Mary) or adulterers (woman at the well)? NEVER! He only condemned the scribes and Pharisees for adherence to laws that attempted to limit entrance to the kingdom of God. In fact, regarding the adulterous woman, He specifically said that only he without sin can cast the first stone, and we all know that no one is without sin.

What about Jesus' words to the rich young ruler that there are only two commandments? How do you "love your neighbor as yourself" when you are condemning him or her because they don't follow the rules in the same way you do? How can YOU sit in condemnation of those whom God has chosen?

Go ahead and cling to the rules you find in Leviticus. But you had better follow ALL of them, to the letter. You might find all of this book to be interesting reading. Try to reconcile its rules for sacrifice with the words of God in Hosea: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Or the beautiful words of God in Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, asking for His disobediant people to follow His will, to set aside their obsession with petty things and turn their hearts to Him. If following the law got people to Heaven, then Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was meaningless. Think about it.

[FF578]

Well Several States do not agree with you and the other liberaltarians:

Kansas

21-3505 Criminal sodomy

(a) Criminal sodomy is:

(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;

(2) sodomy with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; or

(3) causing a child 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or animal.

(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(2) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

(c) Criminal sodomy as provided in subsection (a)(1) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.

Criminal sodomy as provided in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony.

Missouri

566.090, Sexual misconduct, first degree, penalties

1. A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct in the first degree if he has deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex or he purposely subjects another person to sexual contact or engages in conduct which would constitute sexual contact except that the touching occurs through the clothing without that person's consent.

2. Sexual misconduct in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor unless the actor has previously been convicted of an offense under this chapter or unless in the course thereof the actor displays a deadly weapon in a threatening manner or the offense is committed as a part of a ritual or ceremony, in which case it is a class D felony.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1994 S.B. 693)

Effective 1-1-95

Oklahoma

§21-886 Crime Against Nature

Any person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a period of not more than twenty (20) years. Any person convicted of a second violation of this section, where the victim of the second offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall not be eligible for probation, suspended or deferred sentence. Any person convicted of a third or subsequent violation of this section, where the victim of the third or subsequent offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of life or life without parole, in the discretion of the jury, or in case the jury fails or refuses to fix punishment then the same shall be pronounced by the court.

R.L. 1910, § 2444. Amended by Laws 1992, c. 289, § 1, emerg. eff. May 25, 1992; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 263, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1997, c. 333, § 5, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 167, eff. July 1, 1999.

Texas

Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Alabama

Section 13A-6-65 Sexual misconduct. (a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:

Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; or with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; or Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; or He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

(b) Sexual misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §2318.)

Florida

800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act

A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breast feeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

History: s. 1, ch. 7361, 1917; RGS 5425; CGL 7568; s. 778, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 93-4.

Idaho

18-6605. Crime Against Nature -- Punishment

Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five (5) years.

18-6606. Crime Against Nature -- Penetration

Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime against nature.

Louisiana

R.S. 14:89

A. Crime against nature is:

(1) The unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same or opposite sex or with an animal, except that anal sexual intercourse between two human beings shall not be deemed as a crime against nature when done under any of the circumstances described in R.S. 14:41, 14:42, 14:42.1 or 14:43. Emission is not necessary; and, when committed by a human being with another, the use of the genital organ of one of the offenders of whatever sex is sufficient to constitute the crime.

(2) The solicitation by a human being of another with intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation.

B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined for not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.

Amended by Acts 1975, No. 612,§ 1; Acts 1982, No. 703,§ 1.

Michigan

750.158 Crime against nature or sodomy; penalty. [M.S.A. 28.355]

Sec.158. Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.158 ;--Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952.

Former Law: See section 16 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5871; CL 1871, § 7706; How., § 9292; CL 1897, § 11705; CL 1915, § 15479; CL 1929, § 16831; and Act 57 of 1923.

750.159 Emission need not be proved. [M.S.A. 28.356e]

Sec.159. In any prosecution for sodomy, it shall not be necessary to prove emission, and any sexual penetration, however slight, shall be deemed sufficient to complete the crime specified in the next preceding section.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.159 ;--Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952.

Mississippi

§ 97-29-59. Unnatural intercourse.

Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.

Sources: Codes Hutchinson's 1848 ch. 64 art. 12 Title 7(20); 1857 ch. 64 art. 238; 1871 § 2701; 1880 § 2968; 1892 § 1321; 1906 § 1396; Hemingway's 1917 § 1139; 1930 § 1170; 1942 § 2413.

North Carolina

14-177. Crime against nature

If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

South Carolina

Section 16-15-120. Buggery.

Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony and shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for five years or shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Utah

76-5-403. Sodomy, Forcible sodomy

(1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant.

(2) A person commits forcible sodomy when the actor commits sodomy upon another without the other's consent.

(3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor. Forcible sodomy is a felony of the first degree.

Amended by Chapter 88, 1983 General Session

Virginia

§ 18.2-361 Crimes against nature

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Guess what buddy, ALL of these laws are Constitutional. Like it or not.

No. 85-140
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 186
March 31, 1986
June 30, 1986

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196 .

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191 .

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194 .

(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195 .

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , distinguished. Pp. 195-196 .

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196 .

760 F.2d 1202, reversed. [p*187]

Opinions

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 196 , and POWELL, J., post, p. 197 , filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 199 . STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 214 .

[Bush2000]

How do you propose to stop consenting adults from engaging in homosexual relations in the privacy of their bedrooms? Sodomy laws certainly do exist but, for all practical purposes, they're unenforceable unless you endorse installing cameras, monitoring their behavior, and breaking down peoples' doors and hauling them out of their bedrooms. Simply not going to happen. And your waving around these "laws" reminds me vaguely of Neville Chamberlain walking on the tarmac with Hitler's declaration of non-agression in his hands.

[Double Tap]

Sorry dude, but you have lost it. None of what you posted was punishable by death, as you have been wishing.

Further more, most of what you just spammed us with indeed should be a crime. Most of what is in your spam post is about statutory rape, rape, criminal sexual harassment and bestiality.

The laws that actually do cover sex between consenting adults that are not in a public place are wrong and unenforceable. No one in this world has the power to tell me that I can't have oral sex with my wife, period. You want to try, come on down to Texas and give it a shot.

Now back to what this has been about. Where in the above spam you provided does it say that these "crimes" are punishable by DEATH? That has been the arguement all along.

And let me further clarify that I strongly believe that the crime of rape should be punishable by using the death penalty.

[alwaysconservative]

I wonder if Cultural Jihad feels that the government (or religion, for that matter) also has "a responsibility" to "save" people from the self-destructive behaviors of smoking, drinking, eating meat, adultery, divorce, unmarried or unprotected sex, illiteracy, and so on? Just wondering.

[FF578]

Further more, most of what you just spammed us with indeed should be a crime. Most of what is in your spam post is about statutory rape, rape, criminal sexual harassment and bestiality.

You are so wrong. Every law I posted is a sodomy law that is still in effect in the United States.

I understand that you may not know the common law definition of Crime Against nature that most of these statutes use. The crime against nature is sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature. It includes acts with animals and acts between humans per anum and per oral sex. It is that simple.

4 of the State laws: Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas apply to Homosexual contact only.

The rest: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Apply to both Heterosexual and Homosexual sodomy.

My point was that many states still make sodomy a crime (although not as severely punished as in the past).

I didn't expect someone with your mental ability to be able to read law, but the fact is these are Sodomy laws pure and simple.

Sense you cannot read I will break it down for you. You have to be able to understand the elements of what make up each crime, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that most people cannot read a statute book.

Alabama: The third element is key here. He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

In plain english. If a person engages in DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, which Alabama defines as "Any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. " OTHER than in the circumstances as already defined in 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64, they are guilty of this section. CONSENT IS NO DEFENSE. This makes any sodomy illegal in Alabama between any unmarried couples, regardless of the sex involved, and regardless of consent.

Florida: A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

This is simple, anyone person who commits sodomy with another violates this section. As above sex does not matter, consent does not matter.

Idaho: Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five (5) years.

This is another simple one now that you know what Crime Against Nature is. The sex of the people involved does not matter, Consent does not matter.

Louisiana: The unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. Another simple one. Any unnatural carnal copulation (sodomy) by a human with another human, of the SAME OR OPPOSITE sex OR with an animal. This is just like every other law above. Although Louisiana's law like alabama's law does not applied to married couples.

Michigan: Another simple one now that you know the definition of crime against nature. Any person who shall commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal shall be guilty of a felony. This is another sodomy law that the sex of the people involved does not matter and consent does not matter.

Mississippi: Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.

Again another simple one know that you know the crime against nature definition. (Are you noticing that many of these states use almost the same language in their statutues regarding this crime? That is because these laws date back to early America.) Again Consent does not matter and the sex of the people involved does not matter.

North Carolina: If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

Again another simple one. This one is of great interest to myself, now I cannot speak for the other state laws, but I can tell you this one is enforced. North Carolina's sodomy law does not apply to married couples, but it does apply to all unmarried persons. Any sodomy between unmarried couples, no matter the sex of the individuals involved, no matter consent, no matter the age is a felony in North Carolina. Let me give you an example. If you catch two teens on the lover's lane "parking" in the act of oral sex, both can be convicted under this statute. This is a felony as compaired to the misdemenor indecent exposure law that could also be charged.

South Carolina: Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony.

This is very similar to the above law's except South Carolina uses the Term Buggery rather than Crime Against Nature. Buggery does not include oral sex, but includes all Anal Sex. Again this statute does not care about the sex of the people involved or consent.

Utah: (1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant.

Utah's law is in plain english. This applies to anyone 14 or older, in any sodomy, regardless of the sex or consent.

Virginia: If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

This is another simple one. If you engage in any sex with an animal, or any sodomy with any male or female by anal or oral sex, or submit to such you are guilty of a felony.

Maybe now that I have broken these laws down you will understand that these are in fact sodomy laws.

You are from Texas I see. Texas law only applies to Homosexual contact not heterosexual contact. The states I listed above punish both Homosexual and Heterosexual Sodomy.

The penalties for breaking these sodomy laws vary. Below are the maximum penalities in the order of most severe.

Idaho, 5 years to life

Oklahoma, 20 years

Michigan, 15 years

Mississippi, 10 years

Louisiana, 5 years/$2000

South Carolina, 5 years/$500

North Carolina, 3 years

Virginia, 1-5 years

Alabama, 1 year/$2000

Missouri, 1 year/$1000

Kansas, 6 months/$1000

Utah, 6 months/$299

Florida, 60 days/$500

Texas, $500

[FF578]

Sodomy laws certainly do exist but, for all practical purposes, they're unenforceable unless you endorse installing cameras, monitoring their behavior, and breaking down peoples' doors and hauling them out of their bedrooms.

In North Carolina lets say you come up on a couple in a car "parking". You can either charge them with indecent exposure (a misdemenor) or if you caught them in the act of sodomy, Crimes Against Nature (a felony).

[Bush2000]

In North Carolina lets say you come up on a couple in a car "parking". You can either charge them with indecent exposure (a misdemenor) or if you caught them in the act of sodomy, Crimes Against Nature (a felony).

Fine, that's public. Easy. How do you propose to regulate what people do in their bedrooms?

[Double Tap]

You had better learn to read, I said most.

Now get back to the subject. How are you going to kill all these folks that violate your sense of morality??? How are you going to catch people in these acts in the privacy of their own homes?

Your insanity is only match by your ability twist and squirm, and of course lie.

My guess is, you are homosexual and you feel really guilty about it. Please, don't try to take your hatred out on others. Seek help.

[Double Tap]

Your insanity is only match by your ability twist and squirm, and of course lie.

Typos - Your insanity is only matched by your ability to twist and squirm, and of course lie.

[FF578]

Problem is most doesn't apply either.

EVERY SINGLE LAW I POSTED IS A SODOMY LAW. NOT A Rape law.

EVERY LAW I POSTED, EVERY SINGLE LAW, Covers Consentual Sodomy.

You are the one who can't read.

As for your other Ad Hominem attacks, they are beneath a response.

[FF578]

I already acknowledged that you wouldn't catch everyone. Just as you don't catch every murder, but you would force the behavior where it belongs. Away from the rest of society where it cannot corrupt.

[Bush2000]

I already acknowledged that you wouldn't catch everyone. Just as you don't catch every murder, but you would force the behavior where it belongs. Away from the rest of society where it cannot corrupt.

When was the last time you saw two gay men committing sodomy in public?

[Double Tap]

Alabama

Section 13A-6-65 Sexual misconduct. (a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:

Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; or with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; or Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; or He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

Rape. But your too much of a liar to admit that.

Now go off and bugger one of your buddys. You are a despicable person.

I'm going to take some advice I was given once: Never argue with an idiot (or liar). They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Ba'Bye.

[FF578]

Rape. But your too much of a liar to admit that.

You have just shown your lack of reading ablility and brainpower. Any freeper with half a brain can see that this one statute covers three different issues.

Section 13A-6-65 Sexual misconduct. (a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:

Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; OR with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; OR Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; OR He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

Every law I posted covers consentual sodomy. There are freepers who actually practice law that can confirm this. As an LEO we learn to read statutes, you probably don't so I don't blame you, but after having it broken down for you you should be able to understand it.

When reading a statute little words like Shall or OR make all the difference. This statute has Several ORs that cover different crimes.

Let's break this down again.

Section 13A-6-65 Sexual misconduct. (a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if: (There are several things that fall into the category. You just read the first three and forgot about the fourth.)

The first is:

Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62;

OR

(The OR covers something different than the above.) The Second:

with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice;

OR

(That Pesky OR again)

Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent;

OR

(The first three are unconsentual offenses. This last one is not, and is the subsection under which consentual sodomy is covered.)

He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

The OR'S Make all the difference in law. I am sorry that you cannot understand that.

I am going to ping some freepers that are totally on the opposite ends of the political spectrum as myself, but have shown themselves to have half a brain. They will be able to confirm that what I say for these laws are correct. Weikel would you care to clear up the above.

If you still don't believe me, check out click here This pro-sodomite website that works to overturn sodomy laws.

Now let's see if you are man enough to admit you are wrong. I am willing to bet that you are not.

[FF578]

Bush2000,

Our difference in opinion aside, would you clarify for Double tap that the laws I posted do cover consentual sodomy, with special attention to the Alabama sodomy law.