Texas GOP platform: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy

[Ben Kenobi]

I have a source and you don't.

https://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/2010_RPT_PLATFORM.pdf

Not here.

Your source is posted by the tribune, not the Texas GOP. I wanted to post this yesterday but I had some other business to tend to.

[giblets]

https://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP...T_PLATFORM.pdf

Not here.

Your source is posted by the tribune, not the Texas GOP. I wanted to post this yesterday but I had some other business to tend to.

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

I don't know what these mean in the beniverse but in the real world they want to criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy.

[Ben Kenobi]

The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex

I don't know what these mean in the beniverse but in the real world they want to criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy.

These statements are not the same.

BTW, you can't criminalise what's already illegal. Gay marriage is banned in Texas. The GOP isn't criminalising anything. You are assuming that it is in fact legal, which it is not.

[giblets]

If you had read the thread you would know the term sodomy can include oral sex. At worst the person who wrote that didn't know which definition of sodomy the Texas Republican party was using.

Oh, and illegal and criminalized aren't the same. Instead of simply not recognizing gay marriages licenses the Texas GOP wants attempting to issue them to be a felony.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and illegal and criminalized aren't the same. Instead of simply not recognizing gay marriages licenses the Texas GOP wants attempting to issue them to be a felony.

Issuing false marriage certificates is a felony already.

[giblets]

Issuing false marriage certificates is a felony already.

Either you're wrong or the Texas GOP is retarded.

[Zevico]

You make both options seems so appealing.

[Darius871]

Interesting...did the cops look closely to ensure that sodomy was taking place, or did they just make the assumption that that was going on because two guys were in bed? Maybe they were just cuddling!

If I remember correctly, in the earlier Texas case, no one actually witnessed the penetration.

Well they were lying in bed without their pants on so where else could it have been?
Remember, we are talking about TEXAS. (No offense Slow)

Of course, no two people have ever lain in bed without clothes on without a willy going up the bumhole!

...I really can't see any other reason for two dudes to get naked in bed. Are you trolling, merely being pedantic, or is there something big I'm missing here?

That's the point. They just assumed they were doing it. There were NO witnesses to the act that they were charged with. Somehow I don't think "I really can't see any other reason for two dudes to get naked in bed" should satisfy a jury that they were committing sodomy.

That shows a remarkable lack of imagination Elok.

Completely plausible explanations (and clearly enough for 'reasonable doubt' in my book)

1. Caught before anything actually happened.
2. Oral or manual stimulation (or something else) only.
3. It was a very hot day (as I believe is common in Texas) and they could only afford one hotel room.

Unless there is physical evidence.

I've been in bed with another guy a number of times over the years where we made love or did other things in bed, without having anal sex. So in those instances we were in bed together naked, without having engaged in sodomy.

Okay, if you're going to split hairs and draw a line between different types of gay sex, then yes, there are any number of different things they could have been doing. And I'm sure a Texas jury would be willing to convict them for any of them, so it doesn't matter.

There was no proof that they had done any of them.
But yes, a Texas jury did convict them anyway.

Maybe I just have different standards of "reasonable doubt," but if those two dudes weren't plainly doing something gay in that bed, Monica may have very well have been attempting to suck out Bill's kidney stones. Not that either should be illegal...

It apparently was in Texas. Whether it should have been (I think it shouldn't) is another matter entirely. You might think marijuana should be legal, but if the cops say they caught a guy hastily flushing green flakes down the toilet while a filled and heated water-pipe was sitting in the sink, what are you, as a juror, going to rule? Your choices are "yeah, he had pot" and "yeah, he had pot but I'm okay with that so I'm going to say he didn't."

XPost: Yes, Asher, I know (and knew) that. But are you honestly telling me you'd expect those jurors to give a damn about the minutiae of gay sex?

One, there'd be traces on the water-pipe.

And no one is disagreeing that Texas jurors can't be bigoted asses.
My point was I'd like a little "more" proof before I convict someone.
And there was absolutely none in that case.

Jesus Christ, I'm gone for two days and one flat-out false assumption from Rah sparks off this whole spiel?

It only took all of about 3 minutes of glancing at the appellate briefs' uncontested facts to see that the officers in Lawrence v. Texas strolled into Lawrence's home on an unrelated weapons disturbance call and happened to observe - with their own eyes - the defendants "engaged in anal sexual intercourse," i.e. inserting a penis into an anus contemporaneously, not allegedly at some previous time. Where the hell did this "lying in bed" crap even come from?

And why are the words "jury," "reasonable doubt," "convict," etc. getting thrown around when it takes about 30 seconds to find that there was no trial whatsoever because the defendants pled nolo contendre and relied solely on their constitutional arguments?

What a mess.

[rah]

It depends who you read.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/scene_sangorkatz_julaug05.msp

According to the police report, the cops found Pelayo-Velez talking on the phone in the kitchen, three feet from the open door to Lawrence's bedroom. The police claim that the front door of the apartment was ajar when they arrived, so it's possible that the fourth man let himself in, though he wasn't charged with breaking and entering. The cops announced their presence, searched and handcuffed Pelayo-Velez, and then stormed in on Lawrence and Garner in the next room.

The police hustled all four men into the living room, where they sorted out what to do with each of them. Lawrence's living room was littered with pornography, including two framed caricatures of a naked James Dean on the wall. Lawrence, who, according to police, refused to put on any underwear, was livid and called the officers "Gestapo" and "storm troopers." Deputy Joseph Rich Quinn, the lead deputy who wrote the arrest report, called the district attorney to confirm the charges: Eubanks would be booked for making a false report, and Lawrence and Garner would be arrested on the "homosexual conduct" statute. Pelayo-Velez was let go.

So who was Pelayo-Velez? Everyone who has asked Lawrence and Garner has received the same answer: They didn't know him. That's what they told Mitchell Katine, as well as William Eskridge Jr., a Yale Law School professor, who interviewed them for a book he is writing on the rise and fall of sodomy laws. Garner even told Lane Lewis, the bartender who called Hill about the case, that there was no fourth man. "It's clear he was there, because the police had no reason to lie about that," said Eskridge, whose research has yielded little new information about the fourth man. "It makes this much more of a rainbow coalition. You've got this white guy, you've got a black guy. Eubanks was sort of a redneck. And then you've got this Latino of indeterminate age, orientation, occupation, and no known reason to be in the apartment."
Lewis, the bartender, has a different theory. He thinks that the fourth man was an invention of the police. "You don't dismiss a witness to a crime without getting detailed information in case you need to get in touch with him," he said. "This is strange police work." Lewis thinks the police made up Pelayo-Velez so that they'd have cover if their account were ever questioned. As Lewis put it, "The only thing that I could ever think of was that they invented this other guy, so that they could say, 'Oh yes they were having sex and this other guy can prove it. If you can find him.' "

Though they don't go so far as to say that Man No. 4 didn't exist, Hill and Carpenter agree that the police report strains credulity. In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, Carpenter argues that the police probably never witnessed the men having sex at all. He interviewed three of the four police officers about the night of the arrests and concluded that their stories don't add up. Deputy Quinn told Carpenter that he had shouted "sheriff's deputies!" twice in the quiet apartment when he first walked in, and later warned the fourth man, who was three feet from Lawrence's door, to put up his hands. When Quinn entered the bedroom, he claimed that Lawrence and Garner continued having sex for more than a minute, even after the deputy had turned on the lights, pointed his gun, and repeatedly asked them to stop. Finally, according to Quinn's account, the officers separated the two men. "The police come in the door. They announce themselves loudly. They go into the bedroom. And these guys just go on screwing?" asked Hill. "I find this remarkable."

Lawrence and Garner seem to have thought the story remarkable too, at least at first. They told friends that they had not even been in the same room when the cops arrived. They also initially pled not guilty to the sodomy charges. Only after Katine came on board did they change their pleas to "no contest."

Yeah, police announce their presence and they kept on jamming for a few minutes. I find that absurd. I wouldn't believe the cops on this one.

But yes, it never went to trial since their lawyer knew the case would eventually end up.

[Flubber]

The biggest shock is not that they hate gays... but that a bunch of white men made BJ's illegal.
It must be because they are married and no longer can get one unless they pay somebody else for it

The actually don't make different gender sodomy, use of any toys and BJs illegal in the quoted bits. 21.01 makes all BJs, toys and sodomy part of "deviant sexual intercourse" but 21.06 says

Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.



Unless there is another provision which governs "deviant sexual intercourse" between a man and a woman, then the only possible lawbreakers are the homosexuals.


I do question anyone that defines oral sex between married Texas people as deviant.

[SlowwHand]

I'm certainly not going there. My days of making flippant remarks are done.

[Zevico]

It only applies if they engage in gardening activities first.

[Darius871]

It depends who you read.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/scene_sangorkatz_julaug05.msp

Yeah, police announce their presence and they kept on jamming for a few minutes. I find that absurd. I wouldn't believe the cops on this one.

Why is that so inconceivable? I don't know about you, but if I spend all night and a benjamin worth of drinks trying to get a hot babe into the sack and finally succeed, getting a few minutes into the best sex of my life before some cop bursts through the door and says he has a few questions for me even though I know full well that I have done - and am doing - precisely nothing illegal, I guarantee I'm at least going to... "finish up" before talking to him, assuming of course that my ladyfriend cooperates in that design.

Why would the situation be so different if it's two dudes? Maybe they were motivated not only by my strain of ****-you-ism but also the strong sense of gay pride and privacy rights that characterized their subsequent legal crusade. And let's not forget that this or that mind-altering substance may have been thrown into the mix, whether of the sort that would make it harder to notice the cop, harder to submit to his authority, or both. It's not hard for me to fathom at all, but maybe normal hu-mons just don't have as much fun telling off cops as I do.

But yes, it never went to trial since their lawyer knew the case would eventually end up.

That's not necessarily the lawyers' thought process at all - after pre-plea motions to quash the charges on constitutional grounds were denied, contesting the case through trial on factual grounds would have in no way waived the right to reassert constitutional challenges on a motion to set aside the verdict or an appeal from the conviction. It would border on incompetence to advise the clients to plead nolo contendre if the version they gave to their lawyer was the same as the Disney version they told acquaintances, since there's nothing to lose and at least something to gain from arguing in the alternative wherever possible. But if the clients were more concerned with crusading than getting off (so to speak), then it would have been up to them.

I guess it will have to remain a mystery, but even as unusually willing as I am to entertain the possibility of police perjury, I at least have to see a high-stakes motive to take that huge career risk and I'm just not seeing one here.

[rah]

Sorry, cops come in and announce TWICE that they're police. And i'm not inserted anymore.
As stated after they were interviewed that some thought their stories didn't add up.

I'm thinking that the cops figured there was no probable gun charge as they were led to believe then saw a couple of guys in bed and figured they wouldn't look as stupid if there was something to legally arrest them for. If they were gay haters, so much the better.

All I'm saying is that it's not as clear cut as you seem to think. I'd bet they didn't see it actually happening. My opinion only.

And I'd bet they changed their plea when Katine told them that this case could go to the supreme court, unless they were found innocent.

[Darius871]

Sorry, cops come in and announce TWICE that they're police.

What difference does that make? I'm not supposing the cops weren't noticed; I'm supposing they were noticed and nonetheless defiantly ignored. They could "announce" a dozen times and it wouldn't make a difference for me.

I'm thinking that the cops figured there was no probable gun charge as they were led to believe then saw a couple of guys in bed and figured they wouldn't look as stupid if there was something to legally arrest them for. If they were gay haters, so much the better.

Uh, how would the police in any way, shape, or form "look stupid" for responding to a gun disturbance call? It's not only expected of them but indeed their duty to respond, enter as exigency doctrine allows them to do, and make sure all is well. There's no need in that scenario to "save face." The only two possible reasons to risk their own jailtime for flat-out perjury that I could see would be 1) such vitriolic hatred of gays as to take that risk even though there's no other charge to tack it onto (highly unlikely and not substantiated by any prior service record) or 2) some strong suspicion that the defendant or defendants were involved in other crimes that is not substantiated enough for trial, making the cops think "well, at least we can get 'em on this one" (more likely, but not substantiated by the facts).

In my experience the most common reason for a cop to write up a bull**** technicality charge - particularly one virtually never enforced like 21.06 - is when a defiant defendant doesn't respect his authoritay, such as by continuing to screw and forcing the cop to watch despite being directed to stop. Hell, in that scenario I'd probably slap them with the ticket, not even for being gay, nor because I think the law's worth the paper it's printed on, but simply for being douches.