Previously... Springtime For Someone This is my safe spaceThis is where I post, where I dream, where I hurt, and where I recover. Everybody who understands this Extras, Fun Stuff & Recommended Reading 42 Things About Me I Can Hear The Ocean. A proud member of Always go too far Albert Camus |
I Am A Sodomite! Thursday, Jun. 26, 2003 - 12:02 p.m. Well. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the sodomy laws in Texas in a 6-3 vote. Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri - prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well, thank goodness. Because -- horror of horrors -- while I lived in Idaho, I engaged in both oral! AND! anal! sex! with the man I was married to. The 30-year-old Texas "homosexual conduct" law made it a crime for same-sex couples to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse," defined as oral and anal sex, even if it is consensual and occurs in the privacy of a person's bedroom. Violators faced a maximum punishment of a $500 fine. The case involved John Geddes Lawrence and Tryon Garner. In 1998, police officers forced the door open of Lawrence's apartment in Houston while investigating what turned out to be a false report of a disturbance with a gun, filed by a neighbor with a grudge. The officers found the two men engaged in anal sex. Lawrence and Garner then challenged the constitutionality of the law, and five years later, here we are. Thank you, gentlemen, wherever you are today. Now all we have to do is get rid of those stupid laws against homosexual marriage. Which of each others' body parts two consenting adults choose to put in their mouths during their private time should not be something that is a factor in marriage at all. Heterosexual marriage is the equivalent of a diamond lane during rush hour: Everybody pays the same taxes -- why is it only available to some and not others? To condemn people who make love out of wedlock and then ban certain types of unions is the moral and ethical equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. "O, Canada..." Oh -- one other thing: One of the dissenting judges was Clarence Thomas. I guess he's still mad at Anita Hill for not putting out for him, and figures if he can't get some, then he'll wanna make it more difficult for others to get some. ---
what you missed - what's next - leave a note THE LEGAL STUFF: All content on this site that was created by me is copyright 2003-infinity by Brin Marie McLaughlin. Steal my stuff and I'll squash you like a bug. All incoming email or any other form of communication with me is subject to publication or other distribution by me in whole or in part at my sole discretion. This diary features the sole opinions and experiences of one person, namely me, the person who is paying for this space. In the interest of safety and accountability, no anonymous input will ever be allowed here, ever, for any reason in the entire history of ever. Whenever there is a comments section appearing in this diary, it's to be considered part of my paid presence on the web, and shall be used by my readership to supplement the things I have written here with relevant information in a polite manner. Comments that do not fall in that category are subject to deletion at my whim. Your visit to my diary along with your use of my comments section constitutes the understanding of this statement. Anything else on these pages including any comments belongs to whoever created it. All external links are current as of the date of the entry in which they are first featured, but at no other time. News excerpts used here are for educational purposes and are permitted under the Fair Use Doctrine. Hold hands when you cross the street, and play nice. |