Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

It seems that Anchorage Alaska has been ordered by that state's supreme court to offer domestic partner benefits to municipal employees, the focus of this article:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/123005anchorage.htm

We could debate merits and faults of that court decision all day. But I'd like to put that aside to discuss a more alarming development covered in the article:

Following the court ruling Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski said that he would push for an amendment to the state constitution to block court ordered benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees.

Murkowski said he was “outraged by the state Supreme Court's decision". The governor said that the only way to override the court ruling would be through an amendment.

State Sen. Fred Dyson (R- Eagle River) said he will introduce the legislation to amend the constitution.

Democrats say they will fight any move to extend the ban on gay marriage to include domestic partner benefits.

I take this as more proof that the anti-gay marriage crowd aren't just trying to 'protect marriage'. This is something like the third or fourth state where an effort has been made to use an anti-gay marriage amendment as a stepping stone to go after domestic partnership benefits. Apparently those who have made gay rights the primary focus of their culture war have figured out that letting this scenario play out in the courts is going to take too long and may not be resolved in their favor. So now their stepping it up to the next level: Constitutional amendments to prevent municipalities from offering same-sex domestic partnership benefits.

I renew my assertions that this fight was never about marriage - it has always been about making things as miserable as possible for gay couples and their families.

[John Galt]

The Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it.

--Andrew Jackson, President of the United States

There is no need to amend the Constitution of the state or the federal government. Just tell the courts to screw off and take back our own Constitutions.

[Valdimar]

I have a visiting mentor here at my firm this week from Spain. I have lost count of the times he's said "you think you are so free here in America".

[F'losrix]

One wonders how long it will be before someone proposes a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Lawrence v. Texas decision and recriminalize sex between persons of the same gender.

[Valdimar]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: One wonders how long it will be before someone proposes a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Lawrence v. Texas decision and recriminalize sex between persons of the same gender.
When it gets that downright dirty is the same day I leave this country.

[John Galt]

Valdimar wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: One wonders how long it will be before someone proposes a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Lawrence v. Texas decision and recriminalize sex between persons of the same gender.
When it gets that downright dirty is the same day I leave this country.

Why? People propose admendments all the time (I believe the Congress has heard, from it's members, over 10,000). I am sure it has already been proposed. But even then -- why? It's illegal no matter what anyway, as is heterosexual sex, as both are illegal in public, which is the only damn place anyone could possibly get arrested for doing this. Lawrence was a set up.... the charges were dropped, the Supreme Court couldn't even rule as the point was moot... and you say they aren't a bunch of tyrannts. It's disgusting what they have done to the Constitution.

It's high time to ignore the Court and to bring back the Constitution under the rule of the people.

[Valdimar]

That wouldn't be my sole basis. It's the constant marginalization of the GLBT community that has me up in flares. Only thing I have been able to really do about it is move to California where laws are more in the favor with my future plans. Anything that becomes sole law of the land that would strike out CA's laws will be where I'll draw the line.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Why? People propose admendments all the time (I believe the Congress has heard, from it's members, over 10,000). I am sure it has already been proposed. But even then -- why? It's illegal no matter what anyway, as is heterosexual sex, as both are illegal in public, which is the only damn place anyone could possibly get arrested for doing this.
Not if the constitution is amended to recriminalize private, consensual sex acts between persons of the same gender. And yes, I really do believe there's a possibility this country could head down that path if we don't remain vigilant about our rights.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Why? People propose admendments all the time (I believe the Congress has heard, from it's members, over 10,000). I am sure it has already been proposed. But even then -- why? It's illegal no matter what anyway, as is heterosexual sex, as both are illegal in public, which is the only damn place anyone could possibly get arrested for doing this.
Not if the constitution is amended to recriminalize private, consensual sex acts between persons of the same gender. And yes, I really do believe there's a possibility this country could head down that path if we don't remain vigilant about our rights.

How can anyone be prosecuted for such crimes? No party(s) involved would come forward, as it is consensual. No bystander could find out about it nor could any authority as it is private. Lawrence was a setup, that much is obvious. And those despots on the court ruled down with their tyranny upon an issue they had constitutionally no buisness in (states are constitionally expressly allowed to violate any "liberty" and so called liberties under the 14th Amendment yet they think it means something completely different... and O'Connor's opinion was one of the worst opinions I have ever read and it's asinine points were rightfully demolished by Scalia) and procedually no buisness in (the whole case was moot).

And Vladamr, you said you would leave the country if someone proposed these things, and clearlymade it seem as if it was your sole basis. And I'm glad it isn't, because it's a demonstratable silly basis as I'm sure there have already been amendments proposed. And why shouldn't there be? We have to combat the tyrannts on the Court, which is more important than any other consideration right now.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: How can anyone be prosecuted for such crimes? No party(s) involved would come forward, as it is consensual. No bystander could find out about it nor could any authority as it is private.
Do you deny that in the past, laws prohibiting sexual conduct between persons of the same gender have been used in the prosecution of private, consensual acts?

If you examine most of these laws, you will likely find that they make little distinction between private and public acts. They categorize all same-sex conduct as criminal, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place.

I call BS, John. You know perfectly well that an amendment to criminalize homosexual conduct would be used to prosecute private acts - stop pretending otherwise.

Using the debate platform to rail against the court without adressing the substance of the arguments put forth here is nothing more than a display of temper on your part.

[F'losrix]

As to the how: Someone makes a tip to the police that they believe their neighbors are engaging in unlawful gay sex. The police obtain a warrant for surveillance or a search of the premises and use whatever they find there to build a case based on circumstantial evidence. They don't have to necessarily catch the couple in the act.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: How can anyone be prosecuted for such crimes? No party(s) involved would come forward, as it is consensual. No bystander could find out about it nor could any authority as it is private.
Do you deny that in the past, laws prohibiting sexual conduct between persons of the same gender have been used in the prosecution of private, consensual acts?

If you examine most of these laws, you will likely find that they make little distinction between private and public acts. They categorize all same-sex conduct as criminal, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place.

I call BS, John. You know perfectly well that an amendment to criminalize homosexual conduct would be used to prosecute private acts - stop pretending otherwise.

Using the debate platform to rail against the court without adressing the substance of the arguments put forth here is nothing more than a display of temper on your part.

No Skeptic, I'm not pretending. There is a reason why the Lawrence case was moot. There was no friggin case. They do not prosecute private acts. The whole thing was a set up.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: As to the how: Someone makes a tip to the police that they believe their neighbors are engaging in unlawful gay sex. The police obtain a warrant for surveillance or a search of the premises and use whatever they find there to build a case based on circumstantial evidence. They don't have to necessarily catch the couple in the act.

I didn't know that the police wasted resources on such things. The do waste resources in private, consensual sex for HIRE but not private consensual sex to my knowledge --- ever.

[F'losrix]

John, your knowledge on the subject is, shall we say, 'incomplete'. You're grossly naive if you really believe the police never make use of such laws to go after private, consensual sex. It may happen rarely, but it has happened in the past.

Here's the relevant portions of the Michigan Law:

Quote: THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.158 Crime against nature or sodomy; penalty.

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.

Nothing in there about the acts having to be committed in public. Private, consensual acts were criminalized by this statute.

Arguing that police don't really spend time enforcing the sodomy law against individuals acting in private is a very weak argument. If an amendment were pursued to ban homosexual sex, it seems very likely that it would not differentiate between public vs. private acts, consensual or otherwise.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John, your knowledge on the subject is, shall we say, 'incomplete'. You're grossly naive if you really believe the police never make use of such laws to go after private, consensual sex. It may happen rarely, but it has happened in the past.

Here's the relevant portions of the Michigan Law:

Quote: THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.158 Crime against nature or sodomy; penalty.

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.

Nothing in there about the acts having to be committed in public. Private, consensual acts were criminalized by this statute.

Arguing that police don't really spend time enforcing the sodomy law against individuals acting in private is a very weak argument. If an amendment were pursued to ban homosexual sex, it seems very likely that it would not differentiate between public vs. private acts, consensual or otherwise.

And how exactly do they go after this stuff? Show me examples, not your dire predictions. These laws have been on the books for generations. Sureley there are some examples.

As for the above do you remember that sex-farm in Washington where a man was sodomized to death by a horse? It was private, but they took video of it all... had they had michigan's law they could have prosecuted them for it since there was video but they ended up being off the hook.

[John Galt]

While pot is illegal unless you are out in public buying and selling, or smoking in public, there is really no chance that a cop will find you. Hell, prostitution is illegal yet it happens all the time because it isn't that big of a crime and while police do book people for that its not like they are huge amounts of vice officers out there. Most police have to deal with, I don't know, murders and robberies and other crimes that are not statutory.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: And how exactly do they go after this stuff? Show me examples, not your dire predictions. These laws have been on the books for generations. Sureley there are some examples.
Nice attempt at distraction, but I'm not falling for it. They go after them the same way that most cases start. Someone reports a 'problem', the police investigate, and if necessary get warrants to get whatever proofs they need. That's not 'dire predictions' - it's the normal, day to day operations of police work to come up with prosecutable cases.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: While pot is illegal unless you are out in public buying and selling, or smoking in public, there is really no chance that a cop will find you. Hell, prostitution is illegal yet it happens all the time because it isn't that big of a crime and while police do book people for that its not like they are huge amounts of vice officers out there. Most police have to deal with, I don't know, murders and robberies and other crimes that are not statutory.
And I'll renew my assertion that claiming the police have more important crimes to investigate is a cop-out. It doesn't alter the fact that these laws often criminalize private, consensual acts. Even if the cases prosecuted are few, having those laws on the books has other ramifications. They've been used in things like divorce cases, to prevent a gay parent from seeing their own children from a failed heterosexual marriage - demonize the person by pointing to this section of the law and saying they aren't fit to parent and/or present a danger to the children because, after all - what they're doing in private is criminal - even if that crime isn't being actively prosecuted against them specifically.

It will take me time to dig up examples, and I question whether it's worth the effort since I know you'll just ignore them and zoom off in some other direction with a new distraction. Anything but to address the actual point of the debate.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: And how exactly do they go after this stuff? Show me examples, not your dire predictions. These laws have been on the books for generations. Sureley there are some examples.
Nice attempt at distraction, but I'm not falling for it. They go after them the same way that most cases start. Someone reports a 'problem', the police investigate, and if necessary get warrants to get whatever proofs they need. That's not 'dire predictions' - it's the normal, day to day operations of police work to come up with prosecutable cases.

OK, then show me examples. THE example I have heard about is Lawrence, which was obviously a set up.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: While pot is illegal unless you are out in public buying and selling, or smoking in public, there is really no chance that a cop will find you. Hell, prostitution is illegal yet it happens all the time because it isn't that big of a crime and while police do book people for that its not like they are huge amounts of vice officers out there. Most police have to deal with, I don't know, murders and robberies and other crimes that are not statutory.
And I'll renew my assertion that claiming the police have more important crimes to investigate is a cop-out. It doesn't alter the fact that these laws often criminalize private, consensual acts. Even if the cases prosecuted are few, having those laws on the books has other ramifications. They've been used in things like divorce cases, to prevent a gay parent from seeing their own children from a failed heterosexual marriage - demonize the person by pointing to this section of the law and saying they aren't fit to parent and/or present a danger to the children because, after all - what they're doing in private is criminal - even if that crime isn't being actively prosecuted against them specifically.

It will take me time to dig up examples, and I question whether it's worth the effort since I know you'll just ignore them and zoom off in some other direction with a new distraction. Anything but to address the actual point of the debate.

I have addressed the original point here Skeptic. The point is that they DO NOT go after consensual private "crimes" in the same way (as in, at all) as if those same crimes happened in public so therefore all your posts in this subject and Vladamirs threats to leave the country, are, like Lawrence before it came to the Supreme Court, moot.