What the heck did Santorum mean, anyway?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom Head, Apr 28, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Okay, riddle me this:

    By now, we've all heard Sen. Rick Santorum's (overhyped) comment in favor of "sodomy"/"non-natural intercourse" laws, as well as Justice Antonin Scalia's comment to the effect that they do not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. Their constitutionality will be evaluated by the Supreme Court in June.

    According to a 1994 study by the University of Chicago, 90% of heterosexual couples engage in the Clinton-Lewinsky practice, which is also prohibited by most non-sexuality-specific sodomy laws.

    So what this means, in effect, is that if the Supreme Court rules that sodomy laws do not violate the Fourth Amendment or Court precedents regarding the right to privacy or selective enforcement, roughly 60 million Americans (90% of heterosexual couples in states with non-orientation-specific sodomy laws, 99% of G/L couples in all states with sodomy laws) will be subject to arrest. Our prisons can't possibly hold that many people; they're bursting at the seams already, thanks to the war on drugs.

    So, taking this into account: When people say they support enforcement of sodomy laws, and they don't mean shuffling tens of millions of Americans off to the gulags, what is it that they do mean?


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2003
  2. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

    It's ridiculous. How does the government enforce such legislation? You would need a peeping-tom in every bedroom in America.
    Can the courts actually sentence someone to do time for such an act? Yes, I agree...the jails are "bursting at the seams" for drug related offenses. What about community service? Convicted violators can work for society by cleaning the streets and pick up liter. Maybe Sen. Santorum will want each vilolator to wear a sandwich board that reads - Laid Again Last Night. :eek:
     
  3. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Hey, so you've also been reading the Patriot Act II!
    So far, yes--but as you might imagine, they almost never do in cases of consensual sex. Sodomy is more likely to be tacked on as an additional charge in sexual assault cases, which generally carry light sentences on their own. An old friend of mine used to work for a rape crisis hotline, and she explained to me that the charge of "rape" only applies, in many states, to one form of rape. This is, IMHO, the only legitimate argument in favor of sodomy laws--though it seems to me that just expanding the definition of rape would make much more sense, and state legislatures should finally get around to that if sodomy laws are declared unconstitutional.

    What I find intriguing about Santorum's comment is that he makes no attempt to discuss sodomy laws within the context of how they are usually enforced. Unlike the folks who actually prosecute these laws, he sees them as an opportunity to regulate sex between consenting adults, across the board. That strikes me as an extremely odd thing for a Pennsylvania politician to say; I can only assume that he plans to either retire early from the Senate, or move here to Mississippi and take over Trent Lott's job. And if I were Bush, I'd be worried that Santorum may end up handing the state to the Democrats in next year's presidential election. (It's considered an "open" state; Gore carried it in 2000, Bush Sr. in 1988.)


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2003
  4. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I would be willing to bet that almost the only time that charges for sodomy are brought up against someone, it is an add on charge to rape. That being the case I can't personally get too worried about a law that for most practical purposes only further punishes rapists.
     
  5. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    The case going before the Supreme Court at the moment is not a rape case; it's a case where law enforcement officials barged in on two adults having consensual sex in their own home.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2003
  6. Homer

    Homer New Member

    .....When people say they support enforcement of sodomy laws, and they don't mean shuffling tens of millions of Americans off to the gulags, what is it that they do mean?

    I suspect, in reality, it means they support enforcement against =gay and lesbian= couples =only=. The fact that some (or maybe most) don't explicitly qualify such support indicates concern about being labeled a homophobe or bigot.
     
  7. Homer

    Homer New Member

    Two =homosexual= adults, of course.....the Texas sodomy law applies only to homosexuals.

    Given the same circumstances in =any= state, had the defendants been =heterosexual=, there would have been no arrest, much less a prosecution.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2003
  8. David

    David New Member

    In California, the laws regarding sodomy ("the infamous crime against nature"... as the law read) were specifically repealed... but ONLY for consenting adults. As an add-on or single charge it was still a sex crime if both parties weren't consenting.
     
  9. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Thanks for this, David; I hadn't heard about it. This is exactly the way these states should handle sodomy laws if they intend to use them as add-on charges. There's a legislator in Mississippi who attempts, every two years or so, to have our sodomy law repealed (and always ends up unsuccessful, on the grounds that it would remove sodomy as an add-on charge). If I run across his name again, it might be worth dropping him a note on how California resolved the problem. But then if the Supreme Court does what I suspect and hope it will do (e.g., declare sodomy laws to be too broad when applied to consenting adults), that will be unnecessary.

    The Supreme Court angle is an interesting one to me. Scalia has already implied that he will support Texas' sodomy law (I'm confident that he isn't a homophobe, but what he is is a judicial originalist--he feels that the Supreme Court has been entirely too much of an activist court in the way it handles the Fourth Amendment). Thomas, also an originalist, nearly always votes with Scalia. I expect Democratic appointees Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg to favor striking down the law. The wild cards are Rehnquist (generally conservative but sometimes a civil libertarian on Fourth Amendment issues), O'Connor (moderate enough that Scalia has essentially called her an idiot in several dissenting opinions), Kennedy (moderate to conservative), and Stevens (condemned the majority ruling in Bush v. Gore; generally regarded as the most liberal of the Republican appointees). In order for the Texas sodomy law to survive, it will need support by three out of the four moderate justices.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2003
  10. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    Do not underestimate the power of government to interfere with an individual's life, no matter HOW many individuals there may be, similarly situated.

    I invoke the memory of the Holocaust, not to suggest that the present ultra right wing administration would murder anyone, (at least anyone I know) but only to suggest that there are no practical limitations on the execution of an ideologically based agenda.

    Government is dangerous; that is why the founders divided it into three co-equal branches so that each is a check upon the others. This administration, however, seems bent upon assuming powers not legitimately its own.

    Nosborne, JD
     
  11. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Then I assume that it was two males, since otherwise I doubt that the policeman could have known. :)

    My personal opinion is that it is a ridiculous law for consenting adults to be charged with this.

    BTW, are you sure that they were in their own home when this happened? I have a hard time believing that the charges wouldn't have been thrown out before this for other reasons if they were really in their own home.
     
  12. Homer

    Homer New Member

    They were in Lawrence's (one of the defendants) home. Someone reported a weapons disturbance at that address and the police responded. The report later turned out to be false.
     
  13. David

    David New Member

    A false police report? Just happening to arrange for a couple of gay guys to be found in bed when the police broke in.
    Now just being in bed together does not constitute sodomy.
    The guys in bed cannot hear the door being broken down?
    Methinks there is more going on here.
     
  14. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

    The men were accused of staging the whole thing, but have denied it. The man who made the false report said that he did it because of a conflict with the other two (his neighbours), and he was sentenced to 30 days in jail (and served 15, I think).
     

Share This Page