North Carolina continues to enforce Unconstitutional Sodomy Law.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Thorn
In Europe they can, only reason they can't here is cause of this Puritan crap.

There are round trip tickets under $300—try it and find out for yourself.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Yep, I read, I only posted when Thorn said we could have sex in public places in Europe, unfortuneatly we can't.....:O(

they only just made it specifically illegal here the other week...

[TheStinger]

They could always do you under the old gross indecency laws though.

[MikeH]

Ooooh, always fancied being done in a law library.

[TheStinger]

I was just pointing out having sex in public always could be prosecuted. Although you would have more chance of not getting charged if you were hetro

[MikeH]

I know, and I was just making a cheap innuendo.

[Monk]

Why is everybody talking about sex in public as it was some sort of bad thing? If the people doing it are ugly, there's usually some way you can turn your head so you won't have to look at it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
“We’re following constitutional law,” Bryant said. “The Supreme Court’s decision only applies to private conduct.”[/i]

As long as they are defining 'crime against nature' as public sex, then it isn't unconstitutional. If it applies to private conduct, then it is, of course, unconstitutional.

I'm not sure I agree with their justification for declaring public sex as "crime against nature," but I do agree that the constitutional law only protects private, consensual sex.

[chequita guevara]

How could having sex in nature be a crime against nature? Where do they think all the little animals come from?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How could having sex in nature be a crime against nature? Where do they think all the little animals come from?

We don't live in nature anymore -- we live in cities or towns -- for the most part.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Thorn


The Supreme Court is the law of the land, they strike something down in one state, it pertains to ALL States!

err- well yes and no-- The rationale applies across the board but it is possible to have a law entitled a sodomy law that does not violate the reasoning of the court and which would stand.

Even if it is clear that a law in another state should be struck down based on the SC reasoning, it will take a judge, applying that reasoning, to strike down the other law.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


No, they don't. Once SCOTUS has ruled, its rulings on the subject matter are automatically binding on all inferior courts.

Following precendent is the basis of common law. As MTG says not every states laws will go before the SC.

What should happen is that a local judge will throw out offensive laws , in ANY state, which violate the SC ruling. If that decision is appealed, it is possible that this decision might make it back to the Supreme court but only if there were some substantial differences. If it were the same issue, the appeal courts should stuff the appeal and the SC would decline to hear it. So while there could be a state by state airing of this issue, it should only be at the lowerr court or possibly the appeal levels within the state

[Elok]

Originally posted by Thorn
God Save the poor children who see people doing something that is natural and necessary for the human species to propogate.

I realize that I would do better not to get involved in this argument, but that argument isn't really applicable to this particular situation, unless I missed something very important in my biology class....

[Flubber]

I kind of sympathyze with law enforcement here if the legislature hasn't passed a law on public decency or prostitution but an anti- sodomy law is not the solution. The legislature should pass a reasonable law cobering their concerns about public sex and prostitution. There are probably a dozen variations that have been used and tested in court numerous times . One of these could be quickly adopted.

[Ben Kenobi]

These people need to control themselves in public places. No one has a constitutional right to engage in sexual activity in public.

I agree.

This makes me Puritanical?

That's an honour coming from Thorn.