Paladin of Ice Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 With the eyes of the world on them to see how they respond to the poisoning of their people and a crippling failure of their government, Michigan Republicans respond... by passing an anti sodomy and anti oral sex law. Quote A Michigan bill designed to keep pets out of animal abusers’ hands is bringing the state's unconstitutional sodomy ban to the forefront once again. Sodomy bans, which outlaw anal or oral sex, among other sex acts, were ruled unconstitutional in 2003 by the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence vs. Texas. While a majority of U.S. states removed the anti-sodomy laws from their books, Michigan is one of 12 to have kept the language intact 13 years after the ruling. Now, a number of media outlets have raised concerns about those anti-sodomy laws because Michigan legislators voted on an important package of bills called Logan's Law. Among the bills included in the package (which was named for a Siberian husky who was intentionally burned with acid and is intended to crack down on animal cruelty) is Senate Bill 219. After the state passed Senate Bill 291 in a 37-1 vote last week, a new wrinkle has emerged. Introduced by Republican State Sen. Rick Jones, the bill includes an update to the language of the state's existing ban on sodomy, which states "a person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony" that is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. At least they have their priorities settled. Government should be small enough to fit into your bedroom, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 PoI, And right there the Michigan government shows the blatent hypocrisy of the Republican party. They claim to be for "less government" and proceed to pass a law that is unenforceable and absurd to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: PoI, And right there the Michigan government shows the blatent hypocrisy of the Republican party. Say it ain't so!!! I am going to call the Shivao family and all the women whose access to abortion are restricted by legislative fiats know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 TP, I've said it for some time Republicans aren't about "smaller government" they are about bigger government doing what they want it to do. Hence, I haven't voted for a Republican for going on a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Lokisnow, Actually, I've read that they froze the House of Representatives at 435 because they couldn't fit anymore desks in the chamber. It's a BS rational even moreso today when a physical meeting place is no longer necessary to debate the business of the House. But, you are correct 750,000 people per representative is not representational. I agree that the 435 member limit is stupid and arbitrary, but would a 3000 member House (1 rep per 100,000 people) even be functional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 WWTR, With difficulty. Part of the point of "Federalism" is to allow States to deal with their own problems. Not every issue needs to be addresses by the National government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Lokisnow, Actually, I've read that they froze the House of Representatives at 435 because they couldn't fit anymore desks in the chamber. It's a BS rational even moreso today when a physical meeting place is no longer necessary to debate the business of the House. But, you are correct 750,000 people per representative is not representational. I agree that the 435 member limit is stupid and arbitrary, but would a 3000 member House (1 rep per 100,000 people) even be functional? Why wouldn't it? theres at least 3000 ex HoR reps working on K Street in coordinated seamless efforts to lobby the 435 members that haven't yet been promoted to lobbying. I think a 750 member house is no differently functional that a 435 member house, and scaling up from there isn't really different in kind, just big numbers are scary and scary numbers are big fallacy it seems. Put another way, would an Olympics with 10,768 participating athletes even be functional?! That's Sooooo many more athletes than the 1912 Olympics with 2406 participating. I cannot conceive of how an Olympics with 10,768 athletes could possibly work, so we should stick with the wisdom of 1912 and stick to their much more reasonable and reassuring and comfortable number. And never ever raise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said: With the eyes of the world on them to see how they respond to the poisoning of their people and a crippling failure of their government, Michigan Republicans respond... by passing an anti sodomy and anti oral sex law. At least they have their priorities settled. Government should be small enough to fit into your bedroom, right? So why does oral sex get bound up in the definition for sodomy? I thought sodomy was only about bottoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said: So why does oral sex get bound up in the definition for sodomy? I thought sodomy was only about bottoms. Nope. It's used differently all over the place but it frequently includes basically sticking a dick anywhere that's not a human vagina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Wonder if they're gonna try to limit positions next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, Shryke said: Nope. It's used differently all over the place but it frequently includes basically sticking a dick anywhere that's not a human vagina. Wait, so it's one sided on the vagina front? Dicks can only go in vagina's but vaginas can visit more places than just dicks? So if we visit Michigan my wife will be happy and I won't be. Man if we move to the USA I'm going to have to do some major research on which states have anti-sodomy laws to make sure we avoid them. Also I think there needs to be an investigation into whether Bill Clinton visited any state with an A-S law with Monica Lewinski in his entourage. Bill may indeed be a criminal and face several years of prison, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sodomy is basically any kind of sex that doesn't produce children. Goes back to Biblical (Genesis) reference re: Sodom, and general view that all sex is sinful, but that you get a pass if you're doing it to procreate within marital boundaries. In God We Trust, differing from those crazy Muslims who confuse religion with political/legal choices, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 But according to Bill Clinton blow jobs aren't sex. He never had "sexual relations with that woman", ergo blow jobs =/= sex. And what about some oral / anal action during sex, but eventually the dick goes "in the right place"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Wait, so it's one sided on the vagina front? Dicks can only go in vagina's but vaginas can visit more places than just dicks? Oh god no. That's just not covered under sodomy laws afaik. Maybe in some places. It's just that frequently sodomy covers everything but human penis in human vagina. So no oral, no anal, no bestiality, none of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davos Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 14 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said: MpWith the eyes of the world on them to see how they respond to the poisoning of their people and a crippling failure of their government, Michigan Republicans respond... by passing an anti sodomy and anti oral sex law. At least they have their priorities settled. Government should be small enough to fit into your bedroom, right? While the Michigan government is currently controlled by a bunch of vile human beings, this is not what actually happened. What did occur was that the state legislature passed a revision to the Michigan penal to better address animal cruelty. In the same section of the penal code was old language prohibiting sodomy. since they only revised the portion related to animal cruelty, the bill contained the unrevised portions of that section as well, including that pertaining to sodomy. While if would have been nice if the had removed the unenforceable sodomy language but the bill was related to something completely different. they weren't looking to clean out all the old junk on the penal code but to address one specific issue. the language should be removed but it is not new law and is not enforceable. Snopea has more details: http://www.snopes.com/michigan-senate-crime-against-nature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 How does an anti-sodomy law gel with gay marriage, which has been federally legalised by the Supreme Court? Does that mean technically the only legal gay marriage in an A-S state is a platonic one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The sodomy laws of some truculent states are already not enforceable by federal law. They just keep them on the books because they are assholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Thursday Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The BBC has an article about Obama's Clean Power Plan being held up on the grounds of legal challenges (*sigh*). In that article it mentions that over 90% of West Virginia and Kentucky's power is produced from Coal. I mean, I knew that there was a lot of coal production in that area, but still! What do people reckon the outcome of this is going to be? Will the CPP hold up to legal scrutiny, or is it another one of those executive actions that the States are going to defang? ST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 11 hours ago, TrueMetis said: Wonder if they're gonna try to limit positions next. There can be only one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Republicans can't seem to resist dipping into the old Reagan playbook, it seems. There's a whiff of October surprise here... Quote We can by no means take this as a disinterested claim. And no specific names are mentioned. But a high-ranking Iranian government official, who is an appointee of reformist President Hassan Rouhani, says that Republicans asked the Iranians to delay last months prisoner exchange deal until after the Presidential election. The original report comes from an openly pro-regime, quasi government news agency, Tasnim News Agency. And the official is Ali Shamkani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. (Here's a backgrounder on Shamkani from al-Monitor.) But there seems little reason to doubt that the Shamkani quote itself is genuine. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/oh-my--6 TPM was very careful to qualify the claims being made here. But if it's true, one has to wonder why these Republicans are such America-hating traitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.