Skip to comments.Court: Alabama Can't Criminalize Gay Sex
Posted on 06/17/2014 7:24:54 AM PDT by PoloSec
(Newser) An Alabama appeals court has ruled the state's ban on consensual gay sex is unconstitutional. The measure banned oral and anal sex, adding that "consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision"; in a unanimous ruling, judges said the law was aimed at banning gay sex, KSDK reports. The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the decision. "Aiming to ban consensual sex is flat out wrong," says its executive director. "A person's sexual orientation shouldn't matter."
The case at hand involved an Alabama man convicted of sexual misconduct in 2010. Dewayne Williams said he'd had consensual anal sex. Though the prosecutor said he understood the new ruling, he said the alleged victim in the case "got attacked by another man and he had sex he didn't want to have." The constitutionality of the law hadn't been taken on since 2003, when the US Supreme Court rejected a comparable law in Texas, judges said, per the AP.
So is the court saying that men have no legal protection from getting anally raped by other men?
Gay sex ain’t natural.
They kinda had to do this. An anti fudge-packing ruling would have brought the whole house of cards tumbling down. All the stuff Obama and Confess have done to us for years would have to be thrown out by, uh, extension. So to speak.
PS: My phone “corrected” “whole house of cards” to “white house of cards”! I almost decided to leave it that way!
“So is the court saying that men have no legal protection from getting anally raped by other men?”
Sounds like it.
Median age at death for homosexual males in the USA: 47.
The consequence of anal & oral sodomy among queers is death. Why then would not the acts that cause the death be considered murder?
"Aiming to ban consensual sex is flat out wrong," says its executive director. "A person's sexual orientation shouldn't matter."
That's a bad argument right there. It would allow for pedophilia, since the pedophilia law doesn't allow for the consent of the child.
Why make a law that is unenforceable?
This is incoherent.
I notice it’s posted by the same person who posted something else that was also pretty disjointed.
The supreme Court has already determined that it is unconstitutional to legislate against consensual sex acts, that’s not in dispute. But this was a RAPE CASE. Alabama’s statute’s don’t allow rape of a male by a male to be prosecuted under their rape laws, they have a separate statute for sodomy in the first degree. The court determined that the lesser included offense of sexual misconduct was unconstitutional, which is obviously true, as it just bans deviate sexual intercourse by anyone of any gender at any time in any place regardless of consent. The thing is, without the jury instruction on the easier to decide lesser included offense the guy might have been convicted of the actual rape. Here we have a guy may have raped another man and gotten away with it and leftists want to trumpet his success in avoiding a lesser included offense as a gar rights victory?
After that, they are divided on who they should go after next-- the laws against pedophilia or religious organizations who refuse to perform their farcical marriages.
Even though this sin is marked out in the Bible, that no Homosexual will enter the Kingdom of Heaven - any sin will keep one from going to heaven.
That is why Christ's coming is such good news. It is that anyone who truly believes upon His death on the cross (for all ones sins), calling Him Lord, is saved from Hell and has life abundantly forever (both now and in heaven).
Even the sin of Homosexuality is forgiven, if one turns away (Repents from it completely), Believes upon the Saviors death in their place, makes Him Lord and turns and follows Him.
There is no sin that cannot be forgiven save one: That is not believing upon what Christ has done for sin.
Christ alone cleanses completely from sin and brings the believer to Life Abundantly.
If a state can’t outlaw homosexuality because it contains a measure of privacy and mutual consent, then how can a state outlaw prostitution, which can claim the same defenses? How can a state enforce any moral boundaries at all, as long as the parties involved consent?
“This is incoherent.
I notice its posted by the same person who posted something else that was also pretty disjointed.”
Newser is basically news for the low attention span twitter generation. It’s awful.
Here’s the actual court decision, which is the only place you’ll actually find any context on the matter:
“After entering the motel office, A.R.(the victim) turned around to shut the door completely when Williams(the defendant) grabbed A.R. by his throat and pushed him into the bathroom in the office. Williams told A.R. to not say anything or scream and that if A.R. did, Williams would choke A.R. harder. Williams locked the bathroom door and told A.R. “to take [Williams’s] pants down and take [A.R.’s pants] down and pretty much grope him and cause him to [become] erect.” (R. 113.) A.R. complied. Williams told A.R. to bend over and, after A.R. bent over a mop bucket, Williams proceeded to sodomize A.R. While sodomizing him, Williams bit A.R. on the neck and asked him, “Where were you last night?” (R. 114.) After Williams finished, he “told [A.R.] to open the door and see if anybody was in the lobby.” (R. 115.) After A.R. verified that no one was in the motel lobby, the men walked out of the bathroom and A.R. went to his desk. For the next 45 minutes Williams “hovered around” A.R. and then returned to the lobby. (R. 116.)
After Williams left the office of the motel, A.R. sent a text message to one of his coworkers, asking her to come to the motel. The coworker came to the motel and, after William left the lobby, A.R. told her what Williams had done. The next day A.R. told his mother what had happened and the police were notified. A.R. went to a hospital, where nurse Patricia Anthony performed a sexual-assault examination on him. Torey Williams of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences received the sexual-assault kit and determined that material obtained from rectal and genital swabs taken from A.R. matched a DNA sample Williams had provided.
In his case-in-chief Williams presented the testimony of three character witnesses. Williams also testified in his own defense, acknowledging that he had sodomized A.R. but stating that A.R. had consented to the sodomy.
[ So is the court saying that men have no legal protection from getting anally raped by other men? ]
Kinda sounds like it, doesn’t it...
(Although, that passage is too coherent. Yuck).
As mentioned in related threads, please consider the following. Politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause aside, the only aspect of sex that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment. Otherwise, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that government power to regulate sex outside the context of voting is reserved uniquely to the states. So the judge who made the ruling concerning Alabama is likely a pro-gay activist, wrongly legislating gay rights from the bench.
One remedy to judicial activism is the following. Patriots need to work with state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to promptly, clearly and publicly state, to the satisfaction of voters, the specific constitutional clauses which they believe justify their case decisions. And judges who fail to reasonably comply with such requirements can not only be removed from the bench, but possibly spend a few nights in the crossbar motel.
I plan to review this ruling carefully, and try to vote the SOBs out of office if it’s apparent they’re caving to the homosexual agenda. All judges are elective offices in Alabama.
It should be the same for the feds. They make themselves political animals and they should be required to stand for election to political office.