Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Gay Marriage Ban

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Gregory Gadow

unread,

Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97

Even though the state Supreme Court has already opinioned that same-sex
marriages cannot be contracted in Washington, the Senate has passed a
bill that would completely ban them. The House also has the votes to
pass it, and both are poised to over-ride Locke's promised veto.

Those favoring the ban have focused on one and only one of the many
reasons why two people would want to be married; and that one reason is
children. Continuously, the statement has been made that the sole
purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the next
generation.

Here is what I propose:

Propose a new law, either by initiative or by legistature, stating that
no more childless marriages may be contracted in Washington state. From
the time that the new law goes into effect, any couple that cannot have
children, either because of age or condition, shall NOT be granted a
marriage license. Marriages made after the law has taken effect must
produce at least one child within a specified time frame (two years?) or
the marriage license (and all legal benefits) would be revoked. After
all children have become adults, the couple would be allowed to remain
married.

Discussion would need to be made regarding children from a previous
marriage and adoption; however, same-sex couples could adopt or have
children before their same-sex marriage, so in the interest of equality,
I would recommend against these exceptions.

On a related issue, perhaps we should ban divorce for any couple having
minor children (I would be willing to make a case-by-case exception when
a spouse or the children are in danger of abuse) This would further
provide 'a stable environment for children', as there are few things
more traumatic for a child than a messy divorce between his parents.

Any discussion?

Gregory Gadow
Seattle, Washington

William R. Woodburn, Jr.

unread,

Feb 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/15/97

I like the thought put into the "Don't have kids, lose your marriage
license" proposal, not for the idea itself, but for the truth it
exposes. MANY benefits to which heterosexual couples are entitled by
virtue of their marriages are FORBIDDEN to gay couples by denying them
the right to marry.

My personal, layman's, opinion is that Frontiero v. Richardson SHOULD
have made the issue perfectly clear: Entitling a member of one sex to a
benefit entitles the members of the OTHER sex to the same benefit,
pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Ergo, entitling all males to marry a
GIVEN female, provided the given female is unmarried, SHOULD entitle all
females to marry that given female, as well, provided she (the given
female) consents to the marriage. And since that rule SHOULD apply to
female homosexual marriage and the benefits appurtenant thereto, that
same rule should apply to MALES, all and specific, as well.

That it doesn't apply seems to be violative of the spirit and letter of
Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States, and of the
spirit and letter of ALL Federal Legislation and Case Law on the subject
of Sex Discrimination.

Georgewilliamgagnon3rd

unread,

Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97

The state legislature in Hawaii differentiated between "sex discrimination"
and "sexual preference discrimination" when it passed its anti-homosexual
marriage legislation. Actually, the legislators had a fairly cogent
argument-kind of a change. Your letter mentions Frontiero v. Richardson.
In Frontiero, her attorney (now US Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, argued successfully for the extension of spousal benefits to the
husbands of military personnel on a gender-based argument. Gender is the
operative term. It should be remembered that at the present time, the US
Supreme Court makes this differentiation between gender classification
(intermediate bordering on strict scrutiny) and sexual preference
classifications (rational basis scrutiny). Gender classifications are
almost always overturned while the sexual preference meets with such a low
level of scrutiny as to be almost assuredly allowed.

Any doubt should be resolved by looking at Bowers v. Hardwick (US 1986).
Regardless of one's feelings on the minor issue of whether gay people
should be allowed to marry or do whatever, the Bowers case was a horrid bit
of legal ends-justified writing. Privacy was the issue. It should be
looked at as such. However, when one goes from a private (we aren't
hurting anyone) argument to a public (we have the right to something) one
may well meet a very tall wall over which to hurdle. Barring a abrupt
change of direction in this Court which is very doubtful, don't count on
any gay persons taking a trip to the altar any time soon.

Hope this helps,

Jeff Harris

unread,

Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97

In article <01bc1bcb$d0292640$058393cf@default>,
GEORGEWILLI...@worldnet.att.net writes...

...cut...

>Any doubt should be resolved by looking at Bowers v. Hardwick (US 1986).
>Regardless of one's feelings on the minor issue of whether gay people
>should be allowed to marry or do whatever, the Bowers case was a horrid bit
>of legal ends-justified writing. Privacy was the issue. It should be
>looked at as such. However, when one goes from a private (we aren't
>hurting anyone) argument to a public (we have the right to something) one
>may well meet a very tall wall over which to hurdle. Barring a abrupt
>change of direction in this Court which is very doubtful, don't count on
>any gay persons taking a trip to the altar any time soon.
>

The decision in Hawaii requiring the state to recognize the freedom for all
citizens, gay or straight, to marry was based on Hawaii's Equal Rights
Amendment, not the U.S. Constitution. Bowers v. Hardwick is a very narrow
ruling that only applies to state sodomy laws, and most of those laws have
been repealed or stricken by state courts as unconstitutional under state
constitutions. There are only 21 states that still have sodomy laws,
needless to say most are in the South. Your comment about who can go to
the alter raises a seldom discussed aspect of the anti-gay-marriage fervor
of some conservative religious zealots. Not all religions agree that
marriage is restricted to one man and one woman. Should the government
recognize in law, only those religions that disapprove of same sex
marriages?

Plenty of gay and lesbian couples have already gone to the alter, and will
continue to do so. There are plenty of Jewish congregations, Episcopal
Churches, Methodist Churches, Quaker Churches, Unitarian Churches, United
Churches of Christ, Metropolitan Community Churches and others that have
performed or blessed same sex marriages and will continue to do so. At
issue is the question , yet unasked in any court, whether the state can
refuse to recognize those unions or whether it must recognize them on an
equal basis with the rituals and beliefs of faiths who restrict marriage to
heterosexual couples. The religious freedom act of a few years ago
requires the nation and the states to protect the rights and freedom of
people of ALL faiths equally.

Georgewilliamgagnon3rd

unread,

Feb 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/17/97

You are missing the point. I was responding to a post concerning the use
of the Fourteenth Amendment and its use as a vehicle to require states to
recognize gay rights as a gender discrimination issue. My comments are
directed to that end: the differentiation between gender discrimination
(Frontiero) and sexual preference (addressed in Bowers). Bowers was argued
on privacy but decided on state's rights/ federalism concerns. Twenty
years before that, the Bowers case would have at least been written
addressing the privacy issue. Bowers should have been decided the other
way. Logically, from Griswold to Eisenstadt to Roe to Bowers, the issue of
what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is not a concern of
the government. That was my point.

As for there 'only' being 21 states which still have sodomy laws-unless
things have changed, there are only fifty. By my calculations, that's
forty two percent. And many states are addressing this issue directly in
an attempt to get around the "full faith and credit" requirement. Hawaii's
SC has opened a Pandora's Box that looks to be closing at this point. The
country is not yet ready for gay marriage. I am not saying it is right or
wrong. I am saying that from my observations-this issue is dying.

Lastly, my comment on trips to the altar was a jest. I should not have to
explain it but it was meant to say that there is very little sympathy in
today's SC for privacy rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.
Regardless of whether some religions recognize gay marriage, it is state
action that the proponents of gay marriage are demanding. I am pointing
out that the SC will draw a line and not allow it to be crossed. At this
point in time, this line stops short of gay marriage. Or at least that is
where my bets are at the moment.

bammer

unread,

Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97

Georgewilliamgagnon3rd wrote:
>
George,

You have to be careful with the Turkey Baster Boy. He's a little
sensitive...

Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts I have come across on the
subject... just food for thought.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

* Legal Memorandum: Sodomy/Homosexual Rights and the Law

* Previous Washington State Sodomy Statutes

* List of States with Sodomy Laws

* Congressional Testimony on AIDS Anti-discrimination Laws

* Harborview Medical Center Recommendations for Engaging in
Homosexual Activity

* Washington State Statutes Dealing with Public and Private
Morality

- RCW 7.42 Injunctions - Obscene Materials
- RCW 7.48 Nuisances (Includes acts injurious to public
morals)
- RCW 7.48A Moral Nuisances
- RCW 9.61.230 Telephone Calls to Harass etc. (Includes lewd
phone calls)
- RCW 9.66 Nuisance (Includes acts injurious to public
decency)
- RCW 9.68 Obscenity and Pornography
- RCW 9.68A Sexual Exploitation of Children
- RCW 9.69 Obstructing Justice (Includes duty to notify
legal authorities of certain sexual offenses)
- RCW 9A.44 Sexual Offenses
- RCW 9A.64 Family Offenses (Includes bigamy and incest)
- RCW 9A.88 Indecent Exposure - Prostitution
- RCW 10.37.130 Obscene Literature - Description
- RCW 26.44 Abuse of Children and Adult Dependent or
Developmentally Disabled persons - Protection -
Procedure
- RCW 35.22.280(35) Power of cities to make regulations for
the preservation of public morality
- RCW 71.06 Sexual Psychopaths (Includes sodomy as a sex
offense)

INTRODUCTION: Several bills have been introduced in the
Washington State Legislature the past few years which deal directly
or indirectly with sodomy. Many of the comments offered in support
or opposition to such legislation show an inordinate amount of
unfamiliarity with the state and federal law regarding sodomy which
is binding on this jurisdiction. The purpose of this memorandum is
to provide an overview of the law and of court declarations in this
state.

WASHINGTON STATE LAW: Sodomy, which includes homosexuality,
is considered under common law to be a "loathsome and disgusting
crime against nature." Such deviant sexual behavior has been a
criminal offense under our common law or our statutory law since we
first became a territory and since we first became the State of
Washington on November 11, 1889.

In State v. Romans, 211 Wash. 284 (1899), our state supreme
court upheld the conviction of a defendant charged with attempting
to commit the "infamous, detestable and abominable crime against
nature of buggery." This act was a violation of the existing state
sodomy statute.

In State v. Fry, 169 Wash. 313 (1932), our state supreme court
upheld the conviction of two defendants for committing "the sordid
crime of sodomy." In so doing, the court stated that ...

"It is apparent, from a reading of the statute ... that,
where two individuals co-operate to commit any of the acts
therein mentioned, both are guilty of the crime, whether
the genital organ of the one or the other be advanced or
received, or whether the anus or the mouth of the one or
the other be used. The filthiness and proscription rests
equally on both."

In State v. Johnson, 32 Wn. 2d 268 (1949), our state
supreme court upheld the conviction of a defendant charged with
contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court stated
that the defendant's "attempted acts upon the person ... if
completed, would have constituted the crime of sodomy. The
purpose of the (defendant's) conduct was to entice the boy to
participate in acts that were immoral and degenerate."

PAGE-1
In State v. Brown, 35 Wn. 2d 379 (1949), our state supreme
court sustained a prosecutor's reference to a defendant charged
with sodomy as a "pervert." The court stated that "it could be
legitimately adduced from the evidence that the (defendant) was
guilty of sex perversion" by committing sodomy. The court
further held that the prosecutor's statement to the jury that
the defendant "does not think like we do" was a conclusion
reasonably drawn from the evidence and was not prejudicial.

In State v. Rhinehart, 70 Wn. 2d 649 (1967), our state
supreme court upheld the conviction of a defendant charged with
sodomy and rejected the defendant's claims that the statute was
unconstitutional by criminalizing private consensual sexual acts
which the defendant thought to be of "insufficient public
interest."

The court further rejected defendant's contention that the
sodomy statute was unconstitutionally vague and denied him due
process of law. The court specifically found that the statute
gave fair notice of what acts would be punished and that persons
of reasonable understanding were not required to guess at its
meaning.

The court also rejected the defendant's claims that the
statute violated the establishment of religion clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutional because
"those persons who hold a majority belief have imposed their
ethics on others who follow homosexual practices."

The court specifically held that the public interest was
served by the sodomy statute by securing the morals of the
people. The court noted that the record showed between 12 and
24 sodomy cases were filed annually in King County. The United
States Supreme Court refused defendant's request that they hear
the case.

In Gaylord v. Tacoma School Dist. 10, 88 Wn. 2d 286 (1977),
the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the firing of a public
school teacher at Wilson High School in Tacoma, Washington. The
teacher, a self-proclaimed homosexual, had been fired under a
school district policy which provided for the discharge of
school employees for "immorality." The court stated that
homosexuality is "widely condemned as immoral and was so
condemned as immoral during Biblical times".

Our state supreme court agreed with expert testimony
presented by the school district that "a majority of people and
adults in this country react negatively to homosexuality," and
that "in our present culture and certainly, in the last few
hundred years in Western Europe and in America (homosexuality)
has been a frightening idea."

The court went on to hold that homosexuality as commonly
understood was immoral and that if the teacher ...

"... had not been discharged after he became known as a
homosexual, the result would be fear, confusion, suspicion,
parental concern, and pressure on the administration by
students, parents and other teachers. ... students
could treat the retention of the high school teacher by the
school board as indicating adult approval of his
homosexuality. It would be unreasonable to assume as a
matter of law that a teacher's ability to perform as a
teacher required to teach principles of morality (RCW
28A.67.110) is not impaired and creates no danger of
encouraging expression of approval and imitation.

Likewise to say that school directors must wait for
prior specific overt expression of homosexual conduct
before they act to prevent harm from one who chooses to
remain "erotically attracted to a notable degree towards
persons of his own sex and is psychologically, if not
actually disposed to engage in sexual activity prompted by
this attraction" is to ask the school directors to take an
unacceptable risk in discharging their fiduciary
responsibility of managing the affairs of the school
district."

RCW 28A.67.110 reads as follows ... "It shall be the duty
of all teachers to endeavor to impress upon the minds of their
pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, temperance,
humanity, and patriotism; to teach them to avoid idleness,
profanity and falsehood; to instruct them in the principles of
free government, and to train them up to the true comprehension
of the rights, duty and dignity of American citizenship."

Thus, teachers have a duty to impress upon students
principles of moral behavior which stand in opposition to
immoral behavior such as homosexuality.

The court also emphasized RCW 28A.70.140 which requires an
applicant for a teacher's certificate to be "a person of good
moral character," and RCW 28A.70.160 which makes "immorality" a
ground for revoking such certificate.

The court emphatically stated that the fact the sodomy
statute had been repealed in 1975 did not relieve homosexuality
of its immoral status. In making this determination, the court
was applying the principles of common law which apply in the
absence of statutory law.

Recognizing that an individual must have free choice to
commit an act before that act could be considered immoral, the
court stated that ...

"Volitional choice is an essential element of morality.
One who has a disease, for example, cannot be held morally
responsible for his condition. Homosexuality is not a
disease, however. (Plaintiff's) witness, a psychiatrist,
testified on cross-examination that homosexuality ... is
not inborn. Most homosexuals have a psychological or
acquired orientation ... In the instant case plaintiff
desired no change and has sought no psychiatric help
because he feels comfortable with his homosexuality. He
has made a voluntary choice for which he must be held
morally responsible."

The court determined that "while plaintiff's status as a
homosexual (was) unknown to others in the school" his teaching
efficiency was not affected nor did his status injure the
school. The court went on, however, to determine that when it
became publicly known that he was a homosexual "the knowledge
thereof would (cause) injury to the school had he not been
discharged."

The Washington State Supreme Court did not consider that
the firing of the plaintiff from his teaching position solely on
the basis of his self-acknowledged status as a homosexual, even
in the absence of any proof he ever actually engaged in any
homosexual activity, was unconstitutional or that it violated
his rights of equal protection or due process under the United
States Constitution or the Washington State Constitution. The
United States Supreme Court refused defendant's request that
they hear the case.

These cases clearly reveal that our state laws and courts
have consistently recognized the immoral and illegal status of
sodomy. Certainly there is no indication in these judicial
opinions that the practice of deviant sexual behavior such as
homosexuality should be protected from discrimination or
criminal sanctions as a matter of civil or constitutional right.

Even today our state law includes sodomy in its list of
psychopathic sex offenses under Title 71, MENTAL ILLNESS,
Chapter 71.06, SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHS, Section 71.06.010.

Sodomy is named as a psychopathic sex offense along with
abduction, incest, rape, assault with intent to commit rape,
indecent assault, contributing to the delinquency of a minor
involving sexual misconduct, indecent exposure, indecent
liberties with children, carnal knowledge of children,
soliciting or enticing or otherwise communicating with a child
for immoral purposes, and vagrancy involving immoral or sexual
misconduct. An attempt to commit any of these offenses,
including sodomy, is also considered a psychopathic sex offense.

FEDERAL LAW: The federal courts have recognized that
sodomy is not protected by the United States Constitution but is
subject to absolute prohibition by the states.

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: In Singer v. United States
Civil Service Com'n, 530 F. 2d 247 (9th Cir. 1976), the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the job termination of a
homosexual by the federal government because he had "engaged in
immoral and notoriously disgraceful conduct openly and publicly
flaunting his homosexual way of life ... " such that it
discredited the government and impeded its efficiency by
"lessening general public confidence in its fitness to conduct
public business."

The plaintiff homosexual had argued that such termination
was a violation of his constitutional and civil rights. The
court held that his dismissal because his homosexual status and
conduct were such that general public knowledge thereof
reflected discredit upon the federal government as his employer
was not arbitrary or capricious, and more importantly, was not
a violation of any constitutional right.

OTHER FEDERAL COURTS: In Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F. 2d
1388 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia upheld the discharge of a U.S. Navy petty
officer who had engaged in sodomy with one of his recruits. The
homosexual officer had sued the Navy for reinstatement arguing
that military regulations allowing homosexuals to be discharged
for their acts of sodomy were unconstitutional. The court
rejected his argument and held that homosexual activity is not
protected under the constitution.

The court said it could not protect "a form of behavior
never before protected, and, indeed, traditionally condemned."
The unanimous three-judge panel criticized the tendency of
courts to create new rights. They emphatically stated that the
courts should make decisions based on unchanging constitutional
principles, not shifting public opinion ...

"If the revolution in sexual mores that (the homosexual
officer) proclaims is, in fact, ever to arrive, we think it
must arrive through the moral choices of the people and
their elected representatives, not through the judicial
(decree) of this court."

In Rowland v. Mad River Local School District, Montgomery
County, 730 F. 2d 444 (6th Cir. 1984), the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals held that a bisexual female high school counselor had
no basis to sue the local school district when she lost her job
after she had merely told some fellow workers she was bisexual.

The court ruled that none of the bisexual's rights had been
violated. The United States Supreme Court refused to reconsider
the circuit court's decision.

In Baker v. Wade, 769 F. 2d 289 (5th Cir. 1985), the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state statute which
prohibited homosexual conduct as "deviate sexual behavior" was
constitutional and that it furthered the state's interest in
"implementing morality, a permissible state goal." The state
intended that the statute protect "morality, decency, health,
welfare, safety and procreation."

The court emphatically stated that homosexual conduct is
not a constitutionally protected liberty interest, that
homosexuals do not constitute a protected class, and that such
a statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest,
protecting public morality.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: In Wainwright v. Stone, 414
U.S. 21 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state sodomy
statute against the attack that it was unconstitutionally void
for vagueness. The law prohibited the "crime against nature"
which historically has been understood to include homosexual
behavior.

The court pointed out that the state courts on several
occasions had defined the law to prohibit homosexual behavior;
therefore, the law was not unconstitutionally void for
vagueness.

In Doe v. The Commonwealth's Atty. for City of Richmond,
425 U.S. 901 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed
the district court decision that sustained the constitutionality
of a state law which prohibited "crimes against nature,"
including homosexual relations between consenting adults in
private.

Recognizing the legitimate state interest involved and that
the state felt such a law was "appropriate in the promotion of
morality and decency," the court stated that the statute was
"not an upstart notion, it has ancestry going back to Judaic and
Christian law." The court then quoted in a footnote Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13 as follows ...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is
an abomination ... if a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a women, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall surely be put to death, their blood
shall be upon them."

The court specifically found that statutes which declare
sodomy to be criminal behavior do not deprive homosexuals of any
constitutional right of due process, privacy or freedom of
expression. The court declared that, "we cannot say that the
statute offends the Bill of Rights or any other amendment." As
a summary disposition on the merits, this case is binding on all
lower courts including the courts in this state and in this
circuit.

In Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), Justice Harlan of
the U.S. Supreme Court forcefully recognized that homosexuals
are not a class which is afforded special protection under the
Bill of Rights.

"Society ... has traditionally concerned itself with the
moral soundness of its people ... laws forbidding adultery,
fornication and homosexual practices ... confining
sexuality to lawful marriages, form a pattern so deeply
pressed into the substance of our social life that any
constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that
basis ... the right of privacy most manifestly is not an
absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery,
homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from
criminal (sanctions), however privately practiced.

... (this) has been explicitly recognized in
acknowledging the state's rightful concern for its peoples'
moral welfare ... adultery, homosexuality and the like are
sexual intimacies which the state forbids altogether (as
sexual immorality), but the intimacy of husband and wife is
necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the
institution of marriage, an institution which the state
must not only allow but which always and in every age has
fostered and protected ... (the law may punish) those who
establish intimacies which the law has always forbidden and
which can have no claim to social protection.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a state statute that criminalized sodomy,
including homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.
The court expressly rejected the claim that the Federal
Constitution gives a right to homosexuals to engage in sodomy
and that the laws of the many states that still make such
conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time are
invalid.

" ... we think it evident that none of the rights announced
in (previous) cases bears any resemblance to the claimed
right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy ...
Moreover, any claim that ... any kind of private sexual
conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally
insulated from state proscription is unsupportable ...
respondent would have us announce, as the Court of Appeals
did, a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
This we are quite unwilling to do."

The defendant had claimed that acts of consensual sodomy
were included in the fundamental liberties "deeply rooted in
this Nation's history and traditions" which are "implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty," such that "neither liberty nor
justice would exist if (they) were sacrificed." The court noted
the long history of laws prohibiting sodomy and rejected the
claim that such activities were part of our traditional values.

"It is obvious to us that (none) of these formulations
would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage
in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that
conduct have ancient roots ... Sodomy was a criminal
offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the
thirteen original States when they ratified the Bill of
Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had
criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States
outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of
Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy
performed in private and between consenting adults ...
Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in
such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and
tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"
is, at best, facetious."

In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Burger re-
emphasized the traditional mores of centuries of Western Culture
...

"Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct
have been subject to state intervention throughout the
history of Western Civilization. Condemnation of those
practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and
ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime
under Roman law ... Blackstone described "the infamous
crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity
than rape, an heinous act "the very mention of which is a
disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be
named" ... To hold that the act of sodomy is somehow
protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside
millennia of moral teaching."

The defendant also claimed that there was no rational basis
for the sodomy law and that the presumed belief of a majority of
the electorate that homosexual sodomy is immoral and
unacceptable was not an adequate rationale to support the law.
The court answered this claim by stating the obvious ...

"The law ... is constantly based on notions of morality,
and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are
to be invalidated ... the courts will be very busy indeed
... Respondent ... insists that majority sentiments about
the morality of homosexuality should be declared
inadequate. We do not agree, and are unpersuaded that the
sodomy laws of some 25 states should be invalidated on this
basis."

CONCLUSION: It is clear that no constitutional or civil
right exists to engage in acts of sodomy, including
homosexuality, under the constitution or the laws of the United
States or the State of Washington. In fact, it is the well-
established law in this state that such deviant sexual behavior
is immoral and against the public interest. Furthermore, sodomy
is proscribed by the common law which is to supplement our
statutes and constitution and is to apply if not specifically
contradicted by either. RCW 9A.04.060.

In simple words, Jeffey, you're screwed. But then we all knew
that anyway.
--
(Take out spammer foil ("*") to reply on email)
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (Blackhorse) - C.W.L.# 11D30
_____ ___ __ ________ _________
___::|/::/*/::\*\______*\*________/
|::::::::\/:/\:\/::/***\/*|:::_/___
|ka...@e-z.net:::\::\__|:::/::::::::\*"Will*to*a*higher*honor"
|____|\_::/_/\__:\_____::/|______::/
********\/******\/*****\/********\/
G E T O U R T R O O P S O U T O F B O S N I A N O W!

3.1 GG d(-)@>+ s(+):>++ a+ C+(++)$ U W(+)$>++ N++(++)$ K--?
w+(+)$ !O PS(+)$P E(++)$>+ !PGP t(+)@> 5+()@ !X !R tv(-)@>+
b++$ DI++(+) D(+)@ G e-(++)>+++ h(-)@ r* y++++(+)

Jeff Harris

unread,

Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97

There is no point in answering the endless flood of bizarre personal
attacks from this anonymous psychopath on the Net anymore than there is
purpose to answering insults hurled by a drunk on a street corner. The
coward, who claims to be an aid for a Republican legislator in Olympia,
doesn't even have the courage to use his real name.

It is important to correct misinformation that appeared in the anonymous
pamphlet on Sodomy laws that this anonymous anti-gay crusader included his
recent post:

In article <330A88...@e-z.net>, ka...@e-z.net writes...

.... Cut: long list of references from Washington State law and court
precedents from 1889, 1899, 1932, 1949, 1967 making same sex relations in
Washington Sate illegal and affirming those laws....

There is a problem with citing those precedents as current law. All of
those acts and decisions predate Washington State's repeal of it Sodomy Law
in 1975. How revealing it is that this important detail about its repeal
was omitted from the discussion.

> In Gaylord v. Tacoma School Dist. 10, 88 Wn. 2d 286 (1977),
> the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the firing of a public
> school teacher at Wilson High School in Tacoma, Washington. The
> teacher, a self-proclaimed homosexual, had been fired under a
> school district policy which provided for the discharge of
> school employees for "immorality." The court stated that
> homosexuality is "widely condemned as immoral and was so
> condemned as immoral during Biblical times".

..... cut.....

> The Washington State Supreme Court did not consider that
> the firing of the plaintiff from his teaching position solely on
> the basis of his self-acknowledged status as a homosexual, even
> in the absence of any proof he ever actually engaged in any
> homosexual activity, was unconstitutional or that it violated
> his rights of equal protection or due process under the United
> States Constitution or the Washington State Constitution. The
> United States Supreme Court refused defendant's request that
> they hear the case.

....Remainder cut....

Firing someone from his job, not because he failed to do a good job, or
because he committed a criminal act, but simply because he is gay is
blatant discrimination. This case is excellent documentation to persuade
fair minded Washingtonians that anti-discrimination laws are needed to
protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Many
Americans believe that gay citizens are already protected from
discrimination under existing civil rights laws. They are surprised to
learn that no such protection exists in only nine states and in major
cities. Most Americans are fair minded and oppose discrimination.

Civil rights and anti-discrimination laws can not be abridged by sodomy laws
or beacsue the state has a right right to have sodomy laws. The U.S. Supreme
court specifically rejected that argument in Romer v. Evans in 1996.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could defend laws that prohibit love
between consenting adults. Washingtonians rejected those restriction two
decades ago when we repealed the state's sodomy law. Those laws remain only
in a shrinking minority of states, most of them in the South.

The following summary on Sodomy Laws was prepared by Stephan Clark a student
at Yale Law School for distribution on the Net.
___________________________________________________________________

-------------------- SURVEY OF U.S. "SODOMY" LAWS --------------------

SUMMARY. As of May 1995, only *22* states and *Puerto Rico* retained
arguably enforceable laws banning private oral and anal intercourse
between consenting adults. (Note that a few of these laws may also apply
to manual stimulation of another's sex organs.) Before 1961, every
jurisdiction had one of these so-called "sodomy" laws on the books. From
1961 to 1993, laws were repealed in *24* states, *DC*, and *3*
territories. And they were struck down by state supreme courts in *4*
states (KY, MA, NY, PA).

BREAKDOWN. In *11* of the states retaining "sodomy" laws (GA, ID, MD, MI,
MS, LA, NC, OK, RI, SC, VA), those laws are *gender-neutral* (purport to
apply to gay and straight sex), and violations are *felonies*. (Note,
however, that the federal constitutional rights of privacy or equal
protection may (probably do) preclude enforcement of these laws against
mixed-sex couples.)

In *5* more states (AL, AZ, FL, MN, UT), the laws are also *gender-neutral*,
but violations are only *misdemeanors*. (Again, enforcement against
mixed-sex couples is constitutionally questionable.)

In another *5* states (AR, KS, MO, TN, TX), the laws prohibit only
*same-sex* intercourse, and violations are only *misdemeanors*.

And in *Montana*, the law prohibits only *same-sex* intercourse, but
violations are *felonies*.

In addition, *Puerto Rico* has a "sodomy" law that clearly prohibits
*same-sex* intercourse but may also include *mixed-sex* intercourse;
violations are *felonies*.

*Guam*, the *U.S. Virgin Islands*, and *American Samoa* have
decriminalized private, consensual intercourse. (I have been unable to
locate a copy of the *Northern Marianas* code.)

CONSTITUTIONALITY. As many of you know, in a *5-4* decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court *upheld* the constitutionality of "sodomy" laws prohibiting
*same-sex* intercourse as not violating the right of *privacy*. Bowers v.
Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Until 1993, this decision appears to have
stopped the legislative decriminalization trend, which had already slowed
even before the decision.

Justice Powell, the majority's fifth vote, has subsequently admitted that
he probably voted the wrong way. Even in the decision, he suggested that
an attempt to impose a harsh sentence under a "sodomy" law might
constitute *cruel and unusual punishment*--so some of the felony laws may
be questionable on that basis. (But an Idaho court rejected Powell's
suggestion in upholding its felony law.)

Finally, the Court explicitly declined to decide whether singling out
same-sex intercourse might violate the constitutional right to *equal
protection* (based on either sex or sexual orientation discrimination),
even though Georgia conceded it could not constitutionally prosecute
mixed-sex couples under the law. (Apparently, Georgia has subsequently
wavered on whether it can prosecute mixed-sex couples.) The Missouri
supreme court has upheld its same-sex-only law against a sex
discrimination claim, concluding that even though the law uses gender to
define who may not engage in certain acts, the law applies equally to men
and women because neither may engage in same-sex intercourse. (That "equal
application" argument has been rejected in the analytically parallel
context of laws banning interracial cohabitation or marriage.)

Note that the "sodomy" laws in *Texas* and *Michigan* have been invalidated
by lower courts, so their status is somewhat questionable. The Texas
supreme court has so far avoided the issue, and the state apparently
did not appeal the trial court ruling in Michigan.

REGIONAL PATTERN. The distribution of "sodomy" laws conform to a loose
geographic pattern. With the exception of Alabama and Florida, states in
the *deep south* and on the *southeastern Atlantic* coast (in a belt from
Maryland to Louisiana, plus Oklahoma), have *gender-neutral*,
*felony* prohibitions--the most extreme type of "sodomy" law.

Another group of states, which might very roughly be called *"border
states"* or the *mid-south* (from Tennessee to Kansas and Texas, minus
Oklahoma), have replaced the extreme gender-neutral, felony laws with laws
singling out *same-sex* acts as *misdemeanors*. Kentucky's law, which was
invalidated in 1992, was also consistent with this "border state" pattern.

Thus, there is a rough transition from broad, strict laws in the southeast,
through more moderate, same-sex-only misdemeanor laws in the border
states, to the overwhelming norm of outright decriminalization in the
rest of the country.

A third band of 4 states (the *"central Rockies"*?), running from Montana to
Arizona, does not exhibit any real pattern beyond having some form of
"sodomy" law. (2 felonies, 2 misdeanors; 3 gender-neutral, 1
same-sex-only)

Finally, *Minnesota* and *Michigan* are inconsistent with the otherwise
uniform decriminalization pattern in the upper midwest. And *Rhode Island*
is the exception to the decriminalization/invalidation pattern in the
northeast. (Note that, paradoxically, Minnesota enacted a gay civil rights
act in 1993, and that Rhode Island did the same in 1995, joining 4 other
states in the northeast (CT, MA, NJ, VT).)

* * *

APPENDIX. The following is a listing, alphabetically by states, of
references to the remaining "sodomy" laws, notations as to the year of
decriminalization, or citation to the case in which a law was invalidated.
(Note that the year of decriminalization refers to the year in which the
repeal law was passed, not the year in which it became effective. In some
cases, the repeal law provided for delayed effectiveness because it was
passed as part of a general revision of a state's criminal code.) The laws
are *gender-neutral* unless otherwise noted.

STATES:
Alabama--$ 13A-6-65 (sexual misconduct, class A misdemeanor)
Alaska--decriminalized, 1978
Arizona--$ 13-1411 (crime against nature, class 3 misdemeanor) &
$ 13-1412 (lewd or lascivious act, class 3 misdemeanor)
Arkansas--$ 5-14-122 (sodomy, class A misdemeanor) SAME-SEX ONLY
California--decriminalized, 1975
Colorado--decriminalized, 1971
Connecticut--decriminalized, 1969
Delaware--decriminalized, 1972
District of Columbia--decriminalized, 1993
--decriminalization in early 1980's reversed by Congress
Florida--$ 800.02 (unnatural and lascivious act, 2d degree misd.)
Georgia--$ 16-6-2 (sodomy, felony w/ 20-yr max)
Hawaii--decriminalized, 1973
Idaho--$ 18-6605 (crime against nature, felony w/ 5-yr *minimum*)
Illinois--decriminalized, 1961
Indiana--decriminalized, 1976
Iowa--decriminalized, 1976
Kansas--$ 21-3505 (sodomy, class B misdemeanor) SAME-SEX ONLY
Kentucky--<$ 510.100 (sodomy, class A misdemeanor) SAME-SEX ONLY>
**INVALIDATED** Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 (Ky. 1992)
Louisiana--$ 14:89 (crime against nature, felony w/ 5-yr max)
Maine--decriminalized, 1975
Maryland--art. 27, $ 553 (sodomy, felony w/ 10-yr max) &
$ 554 (unnatural or perverted sex practice, felony w/ 10-yr max)
Massachusetts--<ch. 272, $ 35 (unnat'l & lascivious act, fel. 5-yr max)> &
**INVALIDATED** Commonwealth v. Balthazar, 318 N.E.2d 478 (Mass. 1974)
<$ 34 (crime against nature, felony w/ 20-yr max)>
**Regarded as also invalid under Balthazar**
Michigan--$ 750.158 (crime against nature, felony w/ 15-yr max)
--invalidated by local trial court, Michigan Org. for Hum. Rts.
v. Kelley, No. 88-815820 CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. Wayne Cnty. July 9,
1990), not appealed by state (?)
Minnesota--$ 609.293 (sodomy, misdemeanor w/ 1-yr max)
Mississippi--$ 97-29-59 (crime against nature, felony w/ 10-yr max)
Missouri--$ 566.090 (sexual misconduct, class A misd.) SAME-SEX ONLY
Montana--$ 45-5-505 (dev. sexual cond., fel. 10-yr max) SAME-SEX ONLY
Nebraska--decriminalized, 1977
Nevada--decriminalized, 1993
New Hampshire--decriminalized, 1973
New Jersey--decriminalized, 1978
New Mexico--decriminalized, 1975
New York--<Penal $ 130.38 (sodomy, class B misdemeanor)>
**INVALIDATED** People v. Onofre 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y. 1980)
North Carolina--$ 14-177 (crime against nature, class I felony)
North Dakota--decriminalized, 1977
Ohio--decriminalized, 1972
Oklahoma--tit. 21, $ 886 (crime against nature, felony w/ 10-yr max)
Oregon--decriminalized, 1971
Pennsylvania--<$ 3124 (deviate sexual intercourse, 2d degree misd.)>
**INVALIDATED** Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 415 A.2d 47 (Pa. 1980)
Rhode Island--$ 11-10-1 (crime against nature, felon
South Carolina--$ 16-15-120 (buggery, felony w/ 5-yr term)
South Dakota--decriminalized, 1976
Tennessee--$ 39-13-510 (homosexual act, class C misd.) SAME-SEX ONLY
Texas--Penal $ 21.06 (homosexual conduct, class C misd.) SAME-SEX ONLY
--invalidated by state appeals court, State v. Morales, 826 S.W.2d
201 (Tex. App. 1992), reversed on jurisdictional grounds, 869
S.W.2d 941 (Tex. 1994)
--invalidated by state appeals court, City of Dallas v. England,
846 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. App. 1993), review denied on juris. grounds
Utah--$ 76-5-403 (sodomy, class B misdemeanor)
Vermont--decriminalized, 1977
Virginia--$ 18.2-361 (crime against nature, class 6 felony)
Washington--decriminalized, 1975
West Virginia--decriminalized, 1976
Wisconsin--decriminalized, 1983
Wyoming--decriminalized, 1977

TERRITORIES:
American Samoa--decriminalized, 1979
Guam--decriminalized, 1976
Northern Marianas--(?)
Puerto Rico--tit. 33, $ 4065 (dev. sexual interc. (SAME-SEX ONLY) &
crime against nature (gender-neutral?), felony w/ 10-yr term)
Virgin Islands, U.S.--decriminalized, 1984
* * *

Jeff Harris

unread,

Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97

There is no point in answering any the endless scattering of random,
bizarre personal attacks from this anonym anymore than there is purpose to

answering insults hurled by a drunk on a street corner. The coward, who

claims to be an aide to a Republican legislator in Olympia, lacks the
courage even to use his real name.

While I will continue to ignore the personal attacks, I think it is
important to correct misinformation that appeared in the anonymous, undated
pamphlet on Sodomy laws that he included his recent post:

In article <330A88...@e-z.net>, ka...@e-z.net writes...

....cut.......

> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
>
>* Legal Memorandum: Sodomy/Homosexual Rights and the Law

. . . . Cut . . .

> WASHINGTON STATE LAW: Sodomy, which includes homosexuality,
> is considered under common law to be a "loathsome and disgusting
> crime against nature." Such deviant sexual behavior has been a
> criminal offense under our common law or our statutory law since we
> first became a territory and since we first became the State of
> Washington on November 11, 1889.
>

> In State v. Romans, 211 Wash. 284 (1899) . . . cut . . .
> In State v. Fry, 169 Wash. 313 (1932), . . cut . . .
> In State v. Johnson, 32 Wn. 2d 268 (1949). . . cut . . .
> In State v. Rhinehart, 70 Wn. 2d 649 (1967) . . . cut . . .

There is a problem with citing the above law and precedents as current law.
The 1889 Sodomy law and the decisions affirming it predate Washington
State's repeal of that law in 1975. How revealing it is that this
important detail about its repeal was omitted from this report.

..... cut.....

....Remainder cut....

Firing someone from his job, not because he failed to do a good job, or

because he committed a crime, but simply because he is gay is
blatant discrimination. This case is excellent documentation of a great
injustice that will most likely persuade fair minded Washingtonians that

anti-discrimination laws are needed to protect people from discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation.

Many Americans believe that gay citizens are already protected from
discrimination under existing civil rights laws. They are surprised to

learn that no such protection exists under federal law except for employess
of government agencies who are protected by executive orders, employees of
state agencies protected by governors' orders and in only nine states and in
major cities that have enacted civil rights laws that include specific
mention of sxual orientation. Most Americans are fair minded and oppose
discrimination.

Civil rights and anti-discrimination laws cannot be abridged by sodomy laws
or denied because states have a right to have sodomy laws. The U.S.
Supreme Court specifically rejected that argument in Romer v. Evans in 1996.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could so eagerly defend laws that

prohibit love between consenting adults. Washingtonians rejected those

restriction two decades ago in 1976 when we repealed the state's sodomy law.
Laws like those remain only in a shrinking minority of states, most of them

bammer

unread,

Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97

Jeff Harris wrote:
>
> There is no point in answering

If there is no point in answering, then why did you?

> the endless flood of bizarre personal
> attacks

Tell you what, slick. NOTHING that I've said even comes close to
you peculiar level of filth.

> from this anonymous psychopath on the Net anymore than there is
> purpose to answering insults hurled by a drunk on a street corner.

Yo, fuckface. YOU were the one who brought my wife into this.

YOU were the one who brought my CHILD into this.

For those new to the group, I will, once again, post this little
tidbit from Jeffey, demo-extraordinaire.

As far as being a psychopath, I would submit that this posting
of JEFF's bizarre personal attack will enable the people to decide:

*****************************************************************

Jeff Harris wrote:

.>KAGE wrote
.>
.>Yup, a real hoot. Sorta like the video of the Clintons and the Gores
.>touring Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home.
.>
.>Showed Ol Al gore looking at a bust of George Washington and saying,
.>"who's this?"
.>
.>And of course, anything Chuck Rangle or that county clerk from
Illinois
.>says is a genuine holler.

.This makes no sense nor does it have anything remotely to do with
anything I
.posted. Your point is?

.>My point is that, as any adult knows, stupidity in public speaking
.>is not limited to any one party; and that certainly this fine
.>effort will only be limited to those with R's after
.>their names. For example, that most recent example of a Demo
.>politician: Ron Wyden.

.>Didn't know where Bosnia is, the price of a loaf of bread, a gallon of
gas, or who
.>Oregon's largest trading partner is. Tremendous example of the party
of the
.>know-nothings.

.>@:: ::> ::::> ::::> :::::> @ Father, Veteran, Republican
.>@:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::> @ 11th Armored Cav Regiment (Blackhorse)
.>@::::> ::::::>::> ::>::::> @ Current Bosnia Casualty Count:
.>@:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::>::> @ 2 KIA, 6 WIA, (2 crippled for life)
.>@:: ::>::> ::> ::::> :::::>@ 1 Gang Raped
.>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ka...@e-z.net (fmrly
ones...@pacifier.com)
.>G E T O U R T R O O P S O U T O F B O S N I A N O W ! ! ! ! ! !
! !

.I see that when you are not busy posting non sequators

I see that you forgot to post this civil piece of discourse, so I
thought I'd fix that oversight.

.you support the party of religious political extremists, illegal
.arms to contras and class warfare on the poor.

Yup. In fact, I've got "oppress the poor" right at the top of my
daytimer schedule for today.

.Congratulations on being a father. Did you fuck your wife;
***********************************************************

.use a turkey baster; or did you adopt?
***************************************

I'm glad you sent this, Jeff. I'll be using it a lot in our future
discussions as a sign that you, as a member of the party of
the socialists, are either mentally ill, or some kind of a pervert.
Expect to see it a lot.

.I see you also think the
.military is a neat idea unless it is under the command of somone
.who is not a right-wing ideologue.

Really. Did I say that, or are you just hallucinating again?

.I don't think I have anything that I want to
.discuss with you. Please don't bother to repond to any of my questions.

Put me in your kill file then. But I'll be responding to everything
you post. And enjoy the declining years of the "D's", as we make them
increasingly irrelevant. Just like Nov. 94. I'll be talking about
you later.

@:: ::> ::::> ::::> :::::> @ Father, Veteran, Republican
@:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::> @ 11th Armored Cav Regiment (Blackhorse)
@::::> ::::::>::> ::>::::> @ Current Bosnia Casualty Count:
@:: ::> ::> ::>::> ::>::> @ 2 KIA, 6 WIA, (2 crippled for life)
@:: ::>::> ::> ::::> :::::>@ 1 Gang Raped
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ka...@e-z.net (fmrly ones...@pacifier.com)
G E T O U R T R O O P S O U T O F B O S N I A N O W ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
*************************************************************************

Thus the legend of the Turkey Baster Boy was born.

Look familiar, Jeff? Why don't you come and sue me?

God, I would love that.

Nevertheless, T.B. Boy has been manipulated into attempting to spin
my post... as I knew he would be.

I must REALLY bug you, Jeffey. I mean, considering how I forced you
to waste your time answering my pointless post and all.

> coward, who claims to be an aid for a Republican legislator in Olympia,
> doesn't even have the courage to use his real name.
>

Do I NEED to use my real name?

Tell you what, T.B. You would be MUCH better served by concentrating
on the message instead of the messenger.

Gee, T.B. Strange that the Court didn't see it that way, ain't it?

Sorta like those recent cases where the varoius courts have continued
to kick gays out of the military....

> This case is excellent documentation to persuade
> fair minded Washingtonians that anti-discrimination laws are needed to
> protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Many
> Americans believe that gay citizens are already protected from
> discrimination under existing civil rights laws. They are surprised to
> learn that no such protection exists in only nine states and in major
> cities. Most Americans are fair minded and oppose discrimination.
>

Then let's see your initiative, big boy. Should be a piece of cake.

> Civil rights and anti-discrimination laws can not be abridged by sodomy laws
> or beacsue the state has a right right to have sodomy laws. The U.S. Supreme
> court specifically rejected that argument in Romer v. Evans in 1996.
>

Be so kind as to cite specific language. Because that is NOT what they
wrote.

> It is hard to imagine how anyone could defend laws that prohibit love
> between consenting adults. Washingtonians rejected those restriction two
> decades ago when we repealed the state's sodomy law. Those laws remain only
> in a shrinking minority of states, most of them in the South.
>

Gee. I guess there are a few more of THOSE states then there are with
gay rights laws, ain't they?

> The following summary on Sodomy Laws was prepared by Stephan Clark a student
> at Yale Law School for distribution on the Net.

Which, of course, makes it 100% true and correct in every respect.

But Jeffey! YOU called it "Blatent Discrimination!" How COULD you?

Nice job, Jeffey. If you would actually take the time to READ what
I put out here, you would have KNOWN better.

The above work by the law student in no way buttresses (?) your
position.

I TOLD you being in the Minority sucked.

Get used to it, Turkey Baster Boy.

0 new messages