F*cking Illegal in Many States?

[Bluray2]

It seems so....

 

BR2

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/anti-sodomy-laws_n_5187895.html?ir=Gay%20Voices&utm_campaign=042214&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-gay-voices&utm_content=Title

[+ Gar1eth]

It seems so....

 

BR2

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/anti-sodomy-laws_n_5187895.html?ir=Gay%20Voices&utm_campaign=042214&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-gay-voices&utm_content=Title

 

While those laws are still on the books- at least as regards adults- they aren't enforceable by order of the Supreme Court since they decided Lawrence v.Texas in 2003 in favor of Lawrence. Just in the same way, I bought a house back in 1995. The area was an old area. The house had been built around 1924. When I got the copy of the deed on the house/land, there were racial and maybe religious restrictions on who could buy property in that neighborhood. There was also a notice stamped on the deed saying any racial restrictions were - and I can't remember the wording- but basically the stamped notice said racial restrictions were void and unenforceable.

 

Gman

[instudiocity]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/anti-sodomy-laws_n_5187895.html?ir=Gay%20Voices&utm_campaign=042214&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-gay-voices&utm_content=Title

The fourth paragraph of this article lists Alabama and Florida as two states outlawing sodomy.. Forty two years ago I gave my virginity to a boy a year older than me in the form of frottage, anal sex and 69's. I also committed the same acts in Florida some 34 years ago.

 

So I would submit the op's title should be changed to "Getting Caught Fucking A Guy Remains Illegal in Many States."

 

BVB, don't get caught in FTL Florida! I know you ain't gonna quit!

[Bluray2]

While those laws are still on the books- at least as regards adults- they aren't enforceable by order of the Supreme Court since they decided Lawrence v.Texas in 2003 in favor of Lawrence. Just in the same way, I bought a house back in 1995. The area was an old area. The house had been built around 1924. When I got the copy of the deed on the house/land, there were racial and maybe religious restrictions on who could buy property in that neighborhood. There was also a notice stamped on the deed saying any racial restrictions were - and I can't remember the wording- but basically the stamped notice said racial restrictions were void and unenforceable.

 

Gman

 

Gman, can one still get arrested, however (whilst/after fucking)...and then have to go through the court system? BR2

[+ Gar1eth]

Gman, can one still get arrested, however (whilst/after fucking)...and then have to go through the court system? BR2

 

It can happen. But it shouldn't. That case in Louisianna was ridiculous. From news reports the officers supposedly said they didn't know that those laws were no longer enforceable. So assuming that is true, if they had known they never would have arrested the people.

 

Gman

[bigvalboy]

the fourth paragraph of this article lists alabama and florida as two states outlawing sodomy.. Forty two years ago i gave my virginity to a boy a year older than me in the form of frottage, anal sex and 69's. I also committed the same acts in florida some 34 years ago.

 

So i would submit the op's title should be changed to "getting caught fucking a guy remains illegal in many states."

 

bvb, don't get caught in ftl florida! I know you ain't gonna quit!

 

lol.... never!!!

[+ Gar1eth]

I apologize. I've just done a bit more reading on the subject. These laws remain more dangerous than I thought.

 

Gman

[whipped guy]

I will be making my way down to Florida and will get there by the weekend. When I arrive I always change my "forum location" to reflect where I currently am. Perhaps I should remain incognito... Though perchance BVB (or possibly another forum buddy) can give me some pointers so as how to best evade the long arm of the law!!!

[Bluray2]

I apologize. I've just done a bit more reading on the subject. These laws remain more dangerous than I thought.

 

Gman

 

No apology necessary. These awful "unlawful laws still on the books" do seem most problematic. BR2

[bigvalboy]

I will be making my way down to Florida and will get there by the weekend. When I arrive I always change my "forum location" to reflect where I currently am. Perhaps I should remain incognito... Though perchance BVB (or possibly another forum buddy) can give me some pointers so as how to best evade the long arm of the law!!!

 

LOL....I have always felt that a bumper sticker that says "Support Your Local Law enforcement" is a nice touch, and always have sex in the VIP rooms or behind closed doors. Having sex in a car or in a public place will most likely get you a stretch in "The Big House" or since this is Florida, maybe on a chain gang......hhhmmm which come to think of it, may not be such a bad idea, ya know being chained up an all, and being whipped. ;)

[whipped guy]

LOL....I have always felt that a bumper sticker that says "Support Your Local Law enforcement" is a nice touch, and always have sex in the VIP rooms or behind closed doors. Having sex in a car or in a public place will most likely get you a stretch in "The Big House" or since this is Florida, maybe on a chain gang......hhhmmm which come to think of it, may not be such a bad idea, ya know being chained up an all, and being whipped. ;)

Well BVB... Several thoughts...

 

First I am currently visiting NYC and I saw the hottest freaking cop yesterday. Damn what I would have done to have him place the cuffs on me and then bring me to the interrogation room!!!

 

Second, last time in Florida I had no trouble evading the law. Still...

 

... My grandfather was an honorary sheriff up north. I was named after him and I have his badge placed on the dashboard of my vehicle in Florida. You know... just in case!!!!

 

 

Being a sheriff is absolutely nothing up north. However, down south it does carry a bit of extra clout. So just in case... as an ounce if prevention as they say!

[bigvalboy]

Well BVB... Several thoughts...

... My grandfather was an honorary sheriff up north. I was named after him and I have his badge placed on the dashboard of my vehicle in Florida. You know... just in case!!!!

 

 

Being a sheriff is absolutely nothing up north. However, down south it does carry a bit of extra clout. So just in case... as an ounce if prevention as they say!

 

Aaaahhhhh nepotism, it will never fail you!!!

[uwsman2]

Under Lawrence v. Texas, private consensual gay sex between adults is constitutionally protected and cannot be prosecuted. If a police officer arrests you for such conduct, the prosecutor will not press charges and you should get an apology - and you might sue them for false arrest, so they had better be apologetic.

 

But, on the other hand, Lawrence v. Texas does not protect public conduct. You can still be arrested for engaging in sexual activity in public or with a minor or somebody who is not capable of giving valid consent because they are drunk or stoned.

[+ Gar1eth]

But, on the other hand, Lawrence v. Texas does not protect public conduct. You can still be arrested for engaging in sexual activity in public or with a minor or somebody who is not capable of giving valid consent because they are drunk or stoned.

 

According to what I read happened in Baton Rouge- the police officers were conducting sting operations in a park. But they weren't trying to set up sex in the park- the sting was that they were making arrangements to meet somewhere else. As of the time of the articles, none of those arrested had pressed charges. As one of the lawyers said, aside from having to spend time in jail before obtaining bail- between lawyer's fees and bail, his client had already spent $7500 dollars. Suing the city would probably cost more- not to mention spreading their names all over town- which many might not want to happen. To sue the city/police- especially if you weren't rich- might require help from some gay legal aid society to begin with. And it would require a plaintiff who decided the case was more important than whether his name was out in public.

 

Gman

[BSR]

uwsman2, I'm not a lawyer. If you're one, then I'll show due deference, but I disagree with your take on Lawrence. A lawyer friend of mind did tell me that the premise of Lawrence was not the constitutionality of gay sex, but rather the random enforcement of the Texas sodomy law. If a law is never or almost never enforced (as was the case with the Texas sodomy law), then the arrest of two men for sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). If heterosexuals in Texas were never arrested for sodomy (defined to include oral and anal sex, even between a man and a woman), then law enforcement can't go around randomly arresting gays for the same activity. Yes, Justice Kennedy did write about right to privacy in his majority opinion, but what put the dissenting opinion on such shaky constitutional ground was the clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

[+ FreshFluff]

uwsman2, I'm not a lawyer. If you're one, then I'll show due deference, but I disagree with your take on Lawrence. A lawyer friend of mind did tell me that the premise of Lawrence was not the constitutionality of gay sex, but rather the random enforcement of the Texas sodomy law. If a law is never or almost never enforced (as was the case with the Texas sodomy law), then the arrest of two men for sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). If heterosexuals in Texas were never arrested for sodomy (defined to include oral and anal sex, even between a man and a woman), then law enforcement can't go around randomly arresting gays for the same activity. Yes, Justice Kennedy did write about right to privacy in his majority opinion, but what put the dissenting opinion on such shaky constitutional ground was the clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

According to wiki, Texas' anti-sodomy statute banned homosexual sex only. "The statute, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, [had been adopted in 1973 when the state revised its criminal code to end its proscription on heterosexual anal and oral intercourse." So if anything, the statute itself, not its enforcement, violated the equal protection clause.

[+ Gar1eth]

uwsman2, I'm not a lawyer. If you're one, then I'll show due deference, but I disagree with your take on Lawrence. A lawyer friend of mind did tell me that the premise of Lawrence was not the constitutionality of gay sex, but rather the random enforcement of the Texas sodomy law. If a law is never or almost never enforced (as was the case with the Texas sodomy law), then the arrest of two men for sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). If heterosexuals in Texas were never arrested for sodomy (defined to include oral and anal sex, even between a man and a woman), then law enforcement can't go around randomly arresting gays for the same activity. Yes, Justice Kennedy did write about right to privacy in his majority opinion, but what put the dissenting opinion on such shaky constitutional ground was the clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

I'm not a lawyer either. But I read the book 'Flagrant Conduct' about the case. My recollection -which could be wrong- was that the Supreme Court decided that the State had no right to decide what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home. I don't think the fact that Texas almost never 'used' the law was as important as the invasion of a couple's privacy.

 

But I could be wrong as I said. I need to re-read the book.

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

uwsman2, I'm not a lawyer. If you're one, then I'll show due deference, but I disagree with your take on Lawrence. A lawyer friend of mind did tell me that the premise of Lawrence was not the constitutionality of gay sex, but rather the random enforcement of the Texas sodomy law. If a law is never or almost never enforced (as was the case with the Texas sodomy law), then the arrest of two men for sodomy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). If heterosexuals in Texas were never arrested for sodomy (defined to include oral and anal sex, even between a man and a woman), then law enforcement can't go around randomly arresting gays for the same activity. Yes, Justice Kennedy did write about right to privacy in his majority opinion, but what put the dissenting opinion on such shaky constitutional ground was the clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

According to wiki, Texas' anti-sodomy statute banned homosexual sex only. "The statute, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, [had been adopted in 1973 when the state revised its criminal code to end its proscription on heterosexual anal and oral intercourse." So if anything, the statute itself, not its enforcement, violated the equal protection clause.

 

 

Other interesting facts-I think at the same time Texas decriminalized heterosexual sodomy/criminalized homosexual sodomy- they also decriminalized adultery and bestiality. So a man could have 'relations' with a horse or goat or at least only be charged maybe with cruelty to animals. So man/animal 'relations' were more acceptable than same sex sodomy.

 

I'm a native Texan - and I love my state. But it unfortunately has too many holier-than-thou types in it.

 

 

Also I've just quickly re-read the end of 'Flagrant Conduct' where it gives verbatim part of Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion and summarizes the rest. Basically the majority opinion said the state had no right to intrude and tell consenting adults how they could have sex.

 

'Flagrant Conduct' is really a fascinating book. It's not that long, and it is written to be understood by normal (ie non-legal scholars) people. I highly recommend it. It's available for Kindle if anyone is interested.

 

Gman