Obviously they just want to re-try President Clinton. Bill of attainder!
I said what what, in the Senate?
Its already dead on arrival. Anti-Sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since 2003 (See Lawrence v. Texas).
Like members of the Michigan Senate have nothing better to do with their time than a bill which is unconstitutional on its face and will cost the state tens of thousands of dollars in litigation they will lose?
Well, sure, that’s bad. But at least it isn’t as bad as New Jersey, which last year outlawed any kind of sexual contact (including the anal and oral sex that Michiganders now hanker for) between a person and any person or animal. They were aiming just for the “animal” part, but they got a little excited and went all the way. Which happens (though not anymore in Jersey). It would have been OK, as long as folks didn’t think people are animals, but the legislators covered that possibility by banning sex with “an animal or creature”. Even if you claim (falsely) that a person isn’t an animal, you certainly can’t claim she isn’t a creature.
The act in question is A3500, which makes it a crime to “Use, or cause or procure the use of, an animal or creature in any kind of sexual manner or initiate any kind of sexual contact with the animal or creature, including, but not limited to, sodomizing the animal or creature. As used in this paragraph, “sexual contact” means any contact between a person and an animal by penetration of the penis or a foreign object into the vagina or anus, contact between the mouth and genitalia, or by contact between the genitalia of one and the genitalia or anus of the other.”
Should make acrimonious divorce proceedings quite lively.
checks urban dictionary for definition of ‘rock hunt’
Michigan’s legislative process has led to a bit of a misunderstanding here. The bill would not outlaw “the abominable and detestable crime against nature” (which sounds like it involves a Yeti). Instead, the bill would make an unrelated change to the act that already outlaws sodomy, leaving the sodomy ban in place. (The changes the bill would make are crossed out or in all caps. Everything else is existing statute.) Bills in Michigan can address several topics, but only amend one act at a time. Since the animal cruelty law happens to be in the same act as the sodomy ban, Sen. Jones could have drafted a bill that also deletes the unconstitutional and unenforceable sodomy ban. He didn’t.
The Legislative Service Bureau that actually writes the bill language for legislators took the opportunity to update the language of the sodomy ban (e.g. changing “shall commit” to “commits”). This is part of a systematic process whenever a bill would amend an act where the language doesn’t match the current style guide, and it wasn’t requested by the legislator who asked for the bill. I can see exactly how it happened, but it looks really bad to be editing the language of the sodomy ban while leaving it in place.
They should just repeal the ban already so they don’t look like anachronistic Yeti lovers. I’m sure several legislators are already preparing amendments to the bill.
"which makes it a crime to “Use, or cause or procure the use of, an animal or creature in any kind of sexual manner or initiate any kind of sexual contact with the animal or creature, including, but not limited to, sodomizing the animal or creature.”
Thus drastically reducing the sale of gerbils to members of the state legislature.
I have never been able to understand a man who wants to make blowjobs illegal. Isn’t it like … most men’s favorite thing? Are they just not thinking that far ahead? Or are they thinking it will only be enforced on those dirty gays?
And where is negligent poisoning of drinking water mentioned in Deuteronomy or Leviticus?
Its just a form of cockblocking on a massive scale. Since these people can’t get bj’s nobody will.
One has to bear in mind at all times, Fundamentalist Christians are inherently assholes by nature. The only time you hear about them being sexually active is when they are caught molesting children or frequenting prostitutes. So obviously sex between affectionate consenting adults is not only alien to them, but something to be attacked under the color of law.
I’d believe his explanation more if the bill (you can review it at the link in the article) didn’t have any editing at all in the applicable anti-sodomy section. In fact, the edits are highlighted in the PDF version I looked at, and they definitely edited the anti-sodomy portion to be more specific. This was not a case of updating the other parts, and just leaving the questionable bit unchanged.
The editing to the sodomy section was done by the Legislative Service Bureau, the nonpartisan lawyers who actually write the bills. They like to update language to their current house style every time an act is amended. It’s done in virtually every bill. Sen Jones probably didn’t even think about how it would look, and I’m sure it wasn’t part of what he requested. It does look bad, though.
No euphemism. They are known to have gorgeous agates. I found out a few days before I had to leave they were known for this, and found not a lot of good agate, but some gorgeous jasper with hematite veins.
I got a book on rocks in the area, the other thing I really want to find is something they call Greenstone, which is up to 3.8 BILLION years old. That is almost as old as the earth itself and certainly the older rock I would have found (though I have some gneiss I got from an estate sale that might be older…)
Way back in the day, it might have been seen as a perverted or deviant act. Also something that could be performed by non-married people. Remember our Puritan roots.
Check your atlas. You should be fine.
Finally, another reason to not visit Michigan!
Uh, what? You realize that I could say the same thing about just about everyone’s sexual activity? Sex that doesn’t involve those things is not news to anyone else and it’s usually conducted in private, so I’m not sure why you’d think you would “hear about” fundamentalists having sex that is not criminal or involving prostitutes.
Deliberately obtuse headline aside, the real news here is that an inherent flaw in our legal system is that constitutional review requires lawsuits and standing and all kinds of time consuming nonsense even for things that are incredibly obvious. Striking down unconstitutional laws should be a matter of routine, and it should simply not be allowed to pass new laws that don’t pass muster. In fact, I think a fantastic reform would be some sort of fine or punishment for any president or congressperson that votes for a law ruled unconstitutional.
Well, I much prefer giving to getting, but your point certainly remains. Considering some of the campgrounds I know of in the state, I personally look forward to breaking the law there repeatedly this Summer.
Wow, what a wild idea! Getting rid of all the unconstitutional laws? That seems a bit radical, doesn’t it?
Hah - crap. Minnesota. I even was thinking to myself, wait was it in Minnesota or Michigan and googled it. I got all sorts of hits for Duluth Michigan… STREET.