Posted on 06/16/2014 3:34:19 PM PDT by aimhigh
A state law criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct is unconstitutional, an Alabama appeals court has ruled.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals declared the so-called sexual-misconduct law unconstitutional based on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a similar Texas law on due-process grounds.
The prosecutor, Michael Jackson of Selma, said Monday that he understood why the appeals court ruled the way it did, and said the decision would likely be upheld if appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. But he said the victim is not getting a fair result because the sex in the case he was prosecuting wasn't consensual. "He got attacked by another man and he had sex he didn't want to have," Jackson said. He said Alabama's sodomy law still applies in cases of forced sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at beaumontenterprise.com ...
Activist judges - helping homosexual predators since 2003
Obama owning the Judges is a Death Sentence for the United States
The prosecutor messed up by not charging rape or sexual assault in the first place.
Can I ask a stupid question? If this case involved rape, or force and assault, what does that have to do with a law regarding homosexuality??? H ow can you use a case of rape to overturn a law on homosexuality? What does one have to do with the other???
I really don’t know why any sane person would want to become president of this rapidly declining country whose moral moorings have long been severed.
These are State Judges, not Federal ones. ODimwit has nothing to do with those.
Gay rape is now okay according to the courts???
... and they are rolling them in at record speed with this wimpy Senate.
Not a stupid question. Because it was the application of the Statue in the prosecution. He wasn’t allowed to use “consent” in his defense as the statute wouldn’t permit it. Often while a statute seems to address just one thing, it really affects many things that may not seem obvious.
These statutes are all unconstitutional via Lawrence v. Texas anyway. VA had one (think it still does) but we never prosecuted it. And to give you an example of problems it causes (along with anti-adultery criminal statutes). In divorce cases (a civil matter) attorneys could not get testimonial evidence about the adultery because the Party always took the 5th Amendment as it is a crime.
In short, these statutes are not only unconstitutional, they cause more problems than they solve.
Aye. Affirmative action rape will probably remain legal in order to compensate for the thousands of years that queers were oppressed.
No. The issue was he wasn’t permitted, by the statute, to bring up consent as a defense. Had he been permitted to, this never would have been overturned.
let’s start declaring these judges uncomstitutional and getting rid of them.
these laws existed far longer thn this latest libtard batch of commie progressives and some date back before the founding of the fedgov. weren’t tossed out then.
So...if it wasn't consensual then why did they charge the man with a crime that outlawed consensual sex? Wasn't there an assault charge they could have gotten him with?
uh huh.
I really don’t know why any sane person would want to become president of this rapidly declining country whose moral moorings have long been severed.
I would turn down 5 million a year to be President even if it was offered. Seriously I will never be offered, but I would turn it down immediately.
America’s biggest problem right now is that most of the judges are sexual deviants. They should be recusing themselves from this stuff and stick with their “pee pee” pumps under their black robes.
Didn’t know we had a law against homos. I thought homos were to be given preference in everything, just like everywhere else in Obamerica.
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.