To: Central_Floridian
The newsmax story isn't telling the entire story: the problem with the Kansas sex in restroom case is that the law had seperate punishments for the same crime based on what genders were involved. If it was man on woman sex it could be pled down to a lesser charge. Man on man sex couldn't. It doesn't mean that you can't have anti-public sex laws.
4 posted on
07/19/2003 4:04:56 PM PDT by
lelio
To: lelio
Actually, that is not the problem.
The SCOTUS struck down sodomy laws period.
That means you can have sodomy all you want in public restrooms, you can't get charged.
8 posted on
07/19/2003 9:58:34 PM PDT by
rwfromkansas
( "There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C. Spurgeon)
To: lelio
Though you could charge "indecent exposure" or something probably that wouldn't get much in the way of punishment.
10 posted on
07/19/2003 9:59:52 PM PDT by
rwfromkansas
( "There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C. Spurgeon)
To: lelio
Not according to some folks it seems, please read the second part of the newsmax article, the part under "exhibitionists jeopradized".
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson