Bill Criminalizing Anal and Oral Sex Passes Michigan Senate

[SEVERUSMAX]

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

Source: PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU, Canadian minister of justice, remark to newsmen, Ottawa, Canada, December 21, 1967, as reported by The Globe and Mail, Toronto, December 22, 1967, p. 1.He was commenting on the governments proposal to overhaul Canadian criminal law, giving new recognition to individual rights in several areas, including sexual behavior.

Say what you will about Trudeau, and his son, but this is so fucking true. If I want to take my chances with butt-fucking a man or woman...or both, so be it. No one's business but mine and my partners. Hell, it's also a good way to prevent teen pregnancy, so states like Nevada should flip the ages and make anal legal 16, vaginal at 18, if anything.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Good idea. Both forms of sodomy lead to increased health risks. Obviously, anal sodomy is a dirty stupid idea that leads to multiple health risks.

How so? Why can't I put my pisser into somebody's shitter?

 

[about_average]

I could be wrong, but I think people could be arrested and found guilty, they'd have to appeal for the law to be struck down.

So a guy gets sent to prison for anal sex, where he'll get lots more anal sex.

 

[Jose_Rick]

People really need to go back and read the article before posting.

 

[about_average]

People really need to go back and read the article before posting.

What am I missing?

Michigan's anti-sodomy law also bans bestiality, lumping together sex between consenting humans and humans who have sex with animals.

 

[about_average]

In case anyone thinks no harm no foul because it's unconstitutional

Police have charged a Wilson man with violating a 100-year-old profanity law that a North Carolina judge has [aleady] found unconstitutional.
...
Carson was brought before a Wilson County magistrate and received a $500 secured bond. His court appearance on the charge is scheduled for Feb. 11.

http://www.greensboro.com/news/wils...cle_b8ed5b3e-7010-11e3-ad53-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[Boxlicker101]

In case anyone thinks no harm no foul because it's unconstitutionalhttp://www.greensboro.com/news/wils...cle_b8ed5b3e-7010-11e3-ad53-0019bb30f31a.html

Hopefully, this guy can bring a big lawsuit against the cops and the prosecutors for violating his Constitutional rights.

 

[sr71plt]

Hopefully, this guy can bring a big lawsuit against the cops and the prosecutors for violating his Constitutional rights.

Why them? Until the law is overturned by a higher court, this is the law they have to follow. You're advocating the Kim Davis approach--let each cop and prosecutor decide for him/herself what laws they are going to enforce and what not on a case-by-case basis.

 

[RUlookingup]

Why them? Until the law is overturned by a higher court, this is the law they have to follow. You're advocating the Kim Davis approach--let each cop and prosecutor decide for him/herself what laws they are going to enforce and what not on a case-by-case basis.

Have to go with the sky pilot on this one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why them? Until the law is overturned by a higher court, this is the law they have to follow. You're advocating the Kim Davis approach--let each cop and prosecutor decide for him/herself what laws they are going to enforce and what not on a case-by-case basis.

The law has already been found to be unconstitutional, and the prosecutor must know this.

ETA: It occurs to me that we may have two different references. Mine is to Post 31, not to the OP.

 

[sr71plt]

The law has already been found to be unconstitutional, and the prosecutor must know this.

The state is making the Supreme Court say it again. Nobody can stop state legislatures from passing any law they want to until it gets challenged and goes through the courts again. The cops and prosecutors work for the state, not the federal government. (If it were a federal case, it couldn't have been brought). If the guy caught by this has a suit, it will be against the state, not the cops or the prosecutors--for the reasons I've already specified. Methinks you don't know much about the law, Box.

 

[sr71plt]

ETA: It occurs to me that we may have two different references. Mine is to Post 31, not to the OP.

Yeah, you may be right. If it was a North Carolina law and was overruled by a North Carolina judge without anything following that, it wasn't a North Carolina law anymore and anyone who "enforced" the nonexistent law is subject to being successfully sued.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Funniest thread I've seen for a while. You would think people frequenting a site with "Lit" in its title would be at least somewhat literate. No such law was passed. Visit Snopes. Then search "Michigan sodomy law", ... THEN post.

Here is something about it:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._senate_passes_bill_saying_sodomy_is_a_felony

The fact that such laws have been found to be unconstitutional didn't seem to deter the MI Senate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Here is something about it:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._senate_passes_bill_saying_sodomy_is_a_felony

The fact that such laws have been found to be unconstitutional didn't seem to deter the MI Senate.

Neither does the fact that they have a cities of people being poisoned and/or without utilities.

Banning buttsex n' blow jobz is the most important thing ever~!

Pretty typical Republicans....

 

[about_average]

Why them? Until the law is overturned by a higher court, this is the law they have to follow. You're advocating the Kim Davis approach--let each cop and prosecutor decide for him/herself what laws they are going to enforce and what not on a case-by-case basis.

Not really. Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all anti-sodomy laws, so the cop was following a non-law. Just like Kim Davis was not following a law (yes, I know she'd claim to be following God's law).

I'm not sure how it works after such a ruling a new law is passed, like MI. I don't know if it's immediately invalid or not.

It's also interesting this thread was bumped, considering Scalia dissented in Lawrence v. Texa.

 

[barefootgirl69]

Not really. Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all anti-sodomy laws, so the cop was following a non-law. Just like Kim Davis was not following a law (yes, I know she'd claim to be following God's law).

I'm not sure how it works after such a ruling a new law is passed, like MI. I don't know if it's immediately invalid or not.

It's also interesting this thread was bumped, considering Scalia dissented in Lawrence v. Texa.

It was bumped by someone who thinks Snopes.com is the end all - be all of Internet research.

 

[about_average]

It was bumped by someone who thinks Snopes.com is the end all - be all of Internet research.

Well, Snopes is "Mostly True" LOL
The people saying it's a "new" law are wrong, but they did, in fact, pass a law that criminalizes it.

 

[ishtat]

Fer Chrissake people! This is an animal cruelty bill. Read the article before responding.

 

[RUlookingup]

It was bumped by someone who thinks Snopes.com is the end all - be all of Internet research.

Oh, a low information.leftie in other words.

 

[barefootgirl69]

Oh, a low information.leftie in other words.

Should I be like you and off the cuff say

Oh, a dick without one, huh?

If you really had something to say, why not say it with class instead acting like a total dick, without a dick?

No, actually, I'm not a "leftie" and I find that hilarious, since you are acting just like one by being obnoxious and judgmental without even knowing me. Go back to your box.

For the record....
I just don't believe that people should look at one source for all their information.

 

[DMBFFF]

Replying almost 18 months after last post.


I wonder if this bill/law will stand in today's US Supreme Court.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder if MI will also make it illegal to write about anal and oral sex. Such a law would be contrary to the Constitution, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them in this instance.

 

[RubiDia]

Vox, Zombie Gunship Survival

"Gerrymandering" sounds outdated and I have no interest in libertarian politics, but I'd expect it to be a major issue for them. Any libertarians want to weigh in? I don't live in Michigan.

This thread gets a "4".