Posted on 02/04/2015 10:50:56 PM PST by Citizen Zed
The case arose in Key West where Gary Debaun was charged in 2011 with falsely telling a man he did not have the virus before they engaged in sex acts. Monroe County Circuit Judge Wayne Miller dismissed the case, saying state law defined "sexual intercourse" as between men and women.
The state appealed, arguing that the 1986 law Debaun violated, which requires HIV-infected people to inform their partners, was intended to cover all sex acts, both homosexual and heterosexual, even if it did not precisely define the nature of sexual intercourse.
In large part that was because the law was written in gender neutral language, the state argued.
A district appeals court overturned Miller's ruling and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
"The Florida Legislature and this court have always identified penile-vaginal union as 'sexual intercourse' and distinguished it from all other sexual contact," assistant public defender Brian Lee Ellison, representing Debaun, said in his brief to the high court.
"The plain meaning of the term is therefore clear and unambiguous," he added, stating that, according to Florida law sexual intercourse "does not refer to homosexual acts or oral sex."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
There is already a term for it: sodomy.
And no, sodomy is not intercourse. Sodomy is sodomy, and intercourse is intercourse.
No one should ever have to answer that question in a court of law. Too embarrassing! To deal with it, a good (”good” meaning slick) attorney would pick that question apart, word by word, all punctuation, all capitalization would be similarly examined. Then he’d come up with an answer that sounds like yet another question. That’s how B. Clinton did it.
(A)ccording to Florida law, sexual intercourse “does not refer to homosexual acts or oral sex.” …Bill Clinton certainly agrees with that last part.
Legislators need to learn how to write laws.
In this case, the defendant should walk, because the legislators didn't write the law right.
In the upcoming King v. Burwell case, the government should also lose. Because legislation should mean what it says. Especially since, in King v. Burwell, we have it on good authority that the "drafting error" at issue was actually a political gambit.
And every court in the world has always identified the union between a man and a woman as 'marriage'.
Considering the fact that the way they are doing it is the riskiest in terms of spreading the infection it makes perfect sense to apply said law in this situation.
Let’s see. They want a society to consider them as if they are straight couples in terms of civil rights down to a marriage and ready to go as far as to legally force private businesses to count them as such (lawsuits against churches, bakers).
At the same time they don’t want to be counted as equals to straights when they have criminal liabilities involved with their behavior.
It seems like they are privileged, not discriminated.
If not, doesn’t that mean that gay “marriages” cannot be consummated and are therefore invalid? Words have meanings, and the word “marriage” does not apply to perversion.
Or carpet licking.
How does someone prove that they’re gay?
Eatings not cheating
——Words have meanings, and the word “marriage” does not apply to perversion.-——
In the real world they do, in bizarro world which currently inhabit...words only mean what the hearer wants then to mean...
up is down, down is up...
The semantics of the word marriage is only a means to an end...
“And every court in the world has always identified the union between a man and a woman as ‘marriage’.”
Not the courts in this country——anymore.
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.