Where's E.K. Hornbeck when you need him?
The county that gave us the Scopes Monkey Trial and a 2002 lawsuit about whether public schools should include Bible Education Ministry in the curriculum is at it again:
Associated Press, March 17, 2004: DAYTON, Tenn. — Rhea County [Tennessee] commissioners unanimously voted to ask state lawmakers to introduce legislation amending Tennessee's criminal code so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.
"We need to keep them out of here," said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.
County Attorney Gary Fritts also was asked by Fugate to find the best way to enact a local law banning homosexuals from living in Rhea County....
Apparently Rhea County still needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, forward into the twentieth century. Fortunately, the county attorney remembered reading about something called the Constitution, and the commissioners took his advice to rescind their motion. But not before providing the more civilized parts of the country with another round of amusement.
(Thanks to AaronIsNotAmused for the link.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Fiend @ 11:04PM | 2004-04-08| permalink
They backed down a couple of days later...
email | website
Felix @ 11:17PM | 2004-04-08| permalink
I think you may have commented before I published the final version of the post. (That's the hazard of being as indecisive and revision-prone as I am, I guess....)
Yes, it is good that they had the good sense to back down later.
email | website
Felix @ 11:20PM | 2004-04-08| permalink
And, yes, I'm also guilty of reporting old news. But the Scopes/Mencken connection was just to tempting to pass up, even if I missed it on the initial go-round.
email | website
Carlos @ 2:08PM | 2004-04-09| permalink
Do you reject the concept of "crimes against nature" in toto, or just in the case of homosexuality. Is it unconstitutional, for instance, to criminalize necrophilia?
email | website
Trebor @ 11:04AM | 2004-04-10| permalink
So long as they are both consenting... ~ Trebor
email | website
Carlos @ 11:37AM | 2004-04-10| permalink
That could be an interesting clause in somebody's will.
email | website
Felix @ 12:01PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
I reject the concept of "victimless crimes". Necrophilia would be an extreme example, but if the deceased had for whatever bizarre reason made that request, I'd consider it none of my business, disgusting though it might be.
Whether it's unConstitutional or not would be a tougher call, and I'm not at this moment knowledgeable enough about legal minutiae to offer an intelligent opinion on that.
email | website
Felix @ 12:08PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
A little more thought. (Bear in mind IANAL.)
The Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, struck down state laws against sodomy, removing the inherent criminal stigma from homosexuality. And I'm pretty sure that Section I the 14th Amendment would apply to the prospect of legalized discrimination against any non-criminally-offending citizens:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
email | website
Trebor @ 7:37PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
Go back and read what the SC did in Texas. They didn't strike down a sodomy law. They struck down a law that only applied to homosexuals.
A few years early they upheld an outright ban on sodomy in GA. If TX lawmakers are willing to give up head themselves, then they can still criminalize that particular homosexual practice ala GA. ~ Trebor
email | website
Felix @ 10:09PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
You may be referring to Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) a case which was explicitly referred to in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled."
email | website
Felix @ 10:12PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
Fegh. The link to the 1986 Bowers decision in the comment above doesn't seem to work. However, the link within the Lawrence v. Texas decision text does work.
email | website
Felix @ 10:17PM | 2004-04-11| permalink
In any case, even if a non-gender-restricted law against sodomy were Constitutional, does "being a homosexual" automatically create a presumption of guilt of said crime? (Do all heterosexuals engage regularly in every possible form of heterosexual contact, including sodomy, and hence fall under the same presumption?)
email | website
Carlos @ 9:47AM | 2004-04-12| permalink
Again we see that the way to reel in the comments is to talk about sex.
I admire Felix's consistency, even if I reject his conclusions. I think once he allowed that to-the-death gladitorial combat could be revived if participation was voluntary.
email | website
Pablo @ 10:42AM | 2004-04-12| permalink
Carlos, I guess I'll go ahead and assert that if any "crime against nature" should be illegal, it could be justified for some other reason. Therefore, the "crime against nature" argument is completely superfluous.
It has been discovered that other species engage is same-sex pair bonding. Hence, it is "natural".
However, we're the only species who can outlive our teeth. Therefore, isn't DENTISTRY a "crime against nature"? Should WEARING DENTURES be executable by death to make us conform to nature?
email | website
Trebor @ 11:56PM | 2004-04-12| permalink
Actually, in the Texas case, the police caught the offending couple in the act. There was no presumption. ~ Trebor
email | website
Felix @ 12:53PM | 2004-04-13| permalink
I referred to a "presumption of guilt" because the Rhea County proposal had to do with banning "homosexuals" from living there. To justify this by reference to a criminal sodomy law, all homosexuals would have to be presumed guilty of violating it.
email | website
Felix @ 1:18PM | 2004-04-13| permalink
... and, yes, by using the term "inherent" in an earlier comment, I was making the same presumption.
email | website
Post a Comment