Posted on 12/10/2002 11:21:41 AM PST by Liz
Like whist, whilst, and self-abuse, the word sodomy has an old-fashioned ring to it. You don't even see it alluded to much anymore, except in punning tabloid headlines about the situation in Iraq. But it—or its kissin' cousin, the nearly as archaic-sounding "deviate sexual intercourse"—can be found in the criminal codes of thirteen states of the Union, where it is punishable by penalties ranging from a parking-ticket-size fine to (theoretically) ten years in prison.
Even at this late date, many people are vague about just exactly what sodomy is. Montesquieu defined it as "the crime against nature," which is not especially helpful. Blackstone called it "the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast," which gets us a little further, but not much. Back in the U.S.A., the statute books tend to be franker. Some states bring animals into the picture, some don't. The Texas Legislature's definition is nonzoological.
SKIP THIS IF EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OFFENDS. According to Section 21.01 of the Texas Penal Code (readers of delicate sensibilities may at this point wish to skip down a few lines), " 'Deviate sexual intercourse' means: (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object."
RESUME READING HERE What the Lone Star State does and does not view as some kinda deviated preversion became of national interest last week, when the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Lawrence v. Texas. The Lawrence of the case is John G. Lawrence, fifty-nine years old, of Houston, who, on the evening of September 17, 1998, was in his apartment with a guest, Tyron Garner, who is thirty-five. Texas got involved when police, having been tipped off by a neighbor that a "weapons disturbance" was in progress, busted down the door. (The tip was a deliberate lie on the part of the neighbor, who was later convicted of filing a false report.)
What the officers found Lawrence and Garner doing is really none of our business, any more than it was any of Texas's; suffice it to say that it was consensual, nonviolent, and noise-free. The two men were arrested, jailed overnight, and eventually fined two hundred dollars each. They appealed, a three-judge panel of a district appeals court reversed their conviction, the full nine-judge appeals court reversed the reversal, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to do any more reversing. And so to Washington.
The statute under which Lawrence and Garner were convicted, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, is officially known as the Homosexual Conduct Law. Ironically, this statute was a product of the progressive mood of the early nineteen-seventies. In most of the states that still criminalize sodomy, it doesn't matter, legally, whether a couple engaging in behavior (A), above, consists of two men, two women, or one of each.
That's how it was in Texas, too, until 1974. In that bell-bottomed year, the Texas Legislature made heterosexual sodomy legal, but it couldn't quite bring itself to do the same for gays. The result is that Texas is now one of only four states (the others being Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) where it is a crime for gays to please each other in ways that are perfectly legal for straights. The panel that overturned the conviction saw this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The full state court disagreed. Rather, confirming what Anatole France called "the majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges," the court pointed out that in Texas homosexuality is illegal for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. No discrimination there.
According to the Times's Linda Greenhouse, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't have taken the case unless a majority had already decided to "revisit" Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld the constitutionality of Georgia's sodomy law.
The decision in that case—by a vote of five to four, as with so many of the Court's clunkers—was an embarrassment. Both its language and its reasoning were shockingly coarse. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White defined "the issue"—leeringly, sarcastically, obtusely, and repeatedly—as "whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy," or protects "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," or extends "a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy." Any such claim, he added, "is, at best, facetious."
Caricaturing the well-established constitutional right to privacy in this nyah-nyah way is like dismissing the First Amendment as being all about the right to make doo-doo jokes. It was left to the author of the dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, to point out, quoting Justice Brandeis, that the case was really "about 'the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,' namely 'the right to be let alone.' "
Justice Lewis Powell, who tipped the balance in Bowers v. Hardwick, expressed regret years later that he had voted the way he did. He's gone now. John Paul Stevens, who dissented, William Rehnquist, now Chief Justice, and Sandra Day O'Connor are the only holdovers from the Court that upheld Georgia's sodomy law (which, by the way, was thrown out, a few months after Lawrence and Garner were arrested in Houston, by Georgia's supreme court, for violating Georgia's constitution).
Half the states that had sodomy laws when Bowers was decided have got rid of them, and those that still have them seldom enforce them. But when they are enforced the consequences can be more onerous than it may appear. Lawrence and Garner aren't just out four hundred bucks; they may also be banned from certain professions, from nursing to school-bus driving, and are deprived of other privileges denied to persons who have been convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude."
Anyway, sodomy laws are a standing insult to, among others, millions of respectable citizens who happen to be gay. They are an absurd anachronism and an obvious violation of the right to privacy. Whatever they may have represented in Montesquieu's day, or even Byron White's, in 2002 they are nothing but an expression of bigotry. If the Supreme Court takes a truly honest look at Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, it will surely agree with the view of Dickens's Mr. Bumble: this is one case where, at bottom, "the law is a ass."
--SNIP -- Clink on source link for rest of story (go to next)
Ah yes, rum, sodomy, and the lash. Thank God I was able to enjoy a few midshipwomen in my salty days.
Ugh. Does Pete Townsend count? He rocks, but he's only half a queer.
Yes, something like that - rational self-interest. I believe that murdering me is wrong. Since I am a rational animal I can look around and make certain conclusions - other people are just like me, they want to live too. So if I want the 'don't murder Lev' rule to be accepted by others it makes absolutely no sense for me to break 'don't murder John or Jane' rules.
... and out of the Judeo-Christian heritage that has influenced you whether you choose to admit it or not.
Judeo-Christian heritage has nothing to do with this.
You my friend, are the beneficiary of a Judeo-Christian culture whether you choose to claim it or not. It helped shaped your ideas about murder. If you were amongst the pagan barbarian hordes, I dare say you would have "all on your own" thought murder was acceptable...
No, my friend. I am the beneficiary of a rational culture. Barbarians murder not becuase they are atheists, but because they are irrational. Believers murder for the same reason. A religion's greatness is directly proportional to its rationality.
Regards.
I honestly believe that the time is going to come when we are pushed into another civil war. This time it will be liberal/libertarian VS Conservative.While not a civil war, the ideological split is becoming less and less conservative/liberal and more and more libertarian vs. communitarian (a polite word for statist).
In other words, between those who think government should run our lives for us, and those who disagree.
-Eric
You sir are a complete idiot.
N.C.G.S. 4-1 States that the Common Law is in force. That does not mean that all common law is codified.
Tell me Internet Lawyer, Define Common Law Robbery In North Carolina, I will give you the Statute, problem is, the Statute only specifies the Punishment for Common Law Robbery, The Elements of the Crime are drawn from the COMMON LAW Definition.
§ 14-87.1. Punishment for common-law robbery.
Robbery as defined at common law, other than robbery with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as defined by G.S. 14-87, shall be punishable as a Class G felony.
History
(1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1993, c. 539, s. 1174; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
Tell me internet lawyer, where is the definition of Common Law Robbery in that Statute?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
The Following is Codified STATUTORY LAW!!!!!
§ 14-87. Robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapons. Statute text
(a) Any person or persons who, having in possession or with the use or threatened use of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means, whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened, unlawfully takes or attempts to take personal property from another or from any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place where there is a person or persons in attendance, at any time, either day or night, or who aids or abets any such person or persons in the commission of such crime, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
As you can see from the above, you can pull the elements of the crime from the Statute, Can you do the same for COMMON LAW ROBBERY?? Nope, because what we are enforcing is the common law definition of robbery.
The only the that 14-87.1 specifies is the punishment.
Here is another:
§ 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.
(25 Hen. VIII, c. 6; 5 Eliz., c. 17; R.C., c. 34, s. 6; 1868-9, c. 167, s. 6; Code, s. 1010; Rev., s. 3349; C.S., s. 4336; 1965, c. 621, s. 4; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1191; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
What is the Crime Against Nature??????
Tell me the elements of the crime that are codified in the Statute?
You can't pal.
You Can't.
Again it draws on a Common Law Definition for the Elements of the crime.
Here are more. I challenge you and the other internet lawyer to figure out these. There ARE NO STATUTES On these crimes, THEY ARE ALL COMMON LAW OFFENSES.
How about an Attempt to commit a Crime?
Solicitation of Another to Commit A Felony?
Conspiracy?
Compounding a Felony?
In North Carolina Crimes 5th Edition by Robert L. Farb each of the above has the following under the Statute: "This is a Common Law Offense."
Why? Because there is no Statute that covers those offenses.
Here is another one.
Find me in North Carolina General Statutes the offense of Going Armed to the Terror of the People.
You Can't because it isn't there, It is A COMMON LAW OFFENSE!!!!!
In order to find the elements to the crime you would have to rely on the common law definition and (272 N.C. 535; 32 N.C. App. 495.)
You are an idiot. You think the rest of the country operates like the circus that Kalifornia is.
In order for a law to be codified, the elements are going to have to be drawn from the statute. For most of the crimes I posted above YOU CANNOT EVEN FIND A STATUTE THAT COVERS THEM, The ones that do have statutes, those statutes ONLY COVER THE PUNISHMENT, NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME.
So you and your internet lawyers go have a nice day now.
Done. Is masturbation a viable alternative, though?
And becuase Sir William Blackstone said so....it IS so?
Why are you guys so fixated w/ sodomy? Jesus himself spoke out against hypocrisy. Should hypocrisy be made illegal?
Why? I'm not a sodomite Jew. Please. Grow up. BTW, leather on bikes is used to protect the rider from falls and collisions.
Lets make it real simple.
Find me a North Carolina General Statute for the Following Offenses:
Attempt
Solicitation to Commit a Felony
Conspiracy
Compounding a Felony.
If you cannot come up with a General Statute, then you are wrong.
You claim that all of the common law has been codified, so brilliant libertarian, find me a code for the above offenses.
After you do that, why don't you find the definition of Crimes Against Nature and Common Law Robbery in the NCGS.
I will be waiting a while.
Good Day.
I'm not a libertarian. You're enforcing common law that was codified into statutory. As evidenced by this thread, you don't seem to be too swift, so I'll make it real easy for you. Here's the statute that does exactly this:
Chapter 4.
Common Law.
§ 4-1. Common law declared to be in force.All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Dopeslap yourself, toughguy.
The first time I suggested that sodomy should be a capital offense, the usual suspects pilloried me also.
Until you can do that, You lose.
You and the other internet lawyer claimed that ONLY Statutory crimes could be enforced. Since there is no statute covering these crimes, how are they enforced?
Secondly, CITE ME A SUPREME COURT DECISION AS I ASKED THE OTHER LIBERTARIAN INTERNET WARRIOR.
BTW: YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN. I love how libertarians refuse to take the label.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.