Are they discriminatory?

Are they an invasion of privacy?

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to reexamine thirteen states' sodomy laws.

Source.

Discriminatory? I don't really see it in those terms. Invasion of privacy? To me invasion of privacy includes things such as phone tapping, video surveillance, etc. I think that term is largely misused in most cases. But to answer your question, most sodomy laws as written make criminals out of a majority of married/unmarried couples. There are a lot of stupid arcane laws on the books and they can be a source of great amusement but I think it is impractical and counterproductive to even think of enforcing them.

People do this sort of thing ...... for pleasure. They should should get a good flogging I say.

Regards,

Tielhard

This will probably come across as flippant, but it is not meant to be. I live in the UK, homosexuality and sodomy is basically accepted by everyone , from the rent-boy to the MP, but it should be stressed that there is a minority that disagree, their prerogative.

I'm trying to say something, bear with me,

1) Definitely not going to live in Louisiana
2) "What is an immoral sexual act?" I think, that to everyone, there is somethimg immoral, but, I've just looked up the word 'amoral': Without moral standards - sorry, went off on one. the word I was looking for was 'ambiguous'
3) "A man sent to jail for 4 years for 'raping' a woman. He had oral sex with her. acquitted of rape, but guilty of sodomy. HELLO

With regard to invasion of privacy, then I agree with Die or Tie ard, Telephone tapping, computer invasion, et al, without my knowledge.

Cheers.

"If you didn't get caught, did you really do it"

I think they definately violate one's right to privacy, or at least that enforcing them would. And just how does regulating what consenting adults do in private uphold PUBLIC morals?!?

IMHO all laws regarding consensual sex between adults in private settings should be taken off the books, and I DO include prostitution in this as well.

Russ, what was the context of the rape charge? Was she underaged? Did she not give consent? Why else would he be charged with rape? How did this all come about?

Diehard, I'm not very sure as I read it from the first insertion (pardon the pun) from Lanni, under SOURCE, Russ

If I'm remembering correctly, the rape accusation in question was made by a woman against her husband! They were in the process of getting a divorce, and she accused him of rape in an attempt to 'tighten the screws' in the financial settlement.
There was quite a bit of talk about this back when it happened, but without a name or a date I don't really know how to find out more about it.

Post deleted by DieHard

If I'm mistaken, the guy was done for sodomy, he was acquitted of rape because 'they' had oral sex, that works both ways(crums, nearly another pun). Am I losing the gist of the topic?

A day without sunshine is like night

Ah, I THINK he was acquited of rape because it was consensual and she just decided after the fact to give him grief. I don't think he 'deserved' any kind on punishment.

It was because he admitted to having oral sex that they were able to convict him under the existing sodomy laws.

Sodomy laws, which attempt to control private, consensual sex between adult partners, are certainly an invasion of privacy.
Why should the government have the right to police what goes on in the privacy of people's bedrooms? This has nothing to do with public morality, these are very private matters.
Besides, what makes some sexual behaviors more moral than others? Is one bodily opening "more moral" than another? These seem to be very arbitrary views of sexuality.

As long as the sexual behaviors are between consenting adults, and take place in private, I can't see how the government should be involved at all.

I will be curious to see how the Supreme Court rules.

I did a little research, and the rape case in question was that of Anthony Powell. While he was acquitted, the case wasn't quite as cut-and-dried as I'd remembered the news media making it.

While the act DID occur in the privacy of his own home, it wasn't his wife, but his 17-year-old niece who later filed rape charges. But after hearing his testamony and hers, the jury did decide that the act was, in fact, consensual, and that he was not guilty of rape. My feeling is that they did decide to convict him of sodomy simply because they felt he needed to be punished for something.

While this was rather hard on Mr. Powell, it DID lead to the overturning of Georgia's sodomy laws, based on Georgia's state constitution which is held to have a more strongly-worded right-to-privacy than does the federal Constitution.

I had deleted an earlier post because I had made the assumption he was guilty of rape and said he got less than he deserved. I then read that it was consensual and regretted my post. However if, as you say MsBatt, he engaged in sexual relations with his 17-year old niece, whether consensual or not, I go back to my previous opinion before this opinion that was formed previous to the prior opinion and stand by my statement that he got far less than he deserved!! whew!

Oh! Boy am I confused? They have Oral sex and he gets convicted of Sodomy!!! Hadn't appreciated human anatomy changed as you crossed the ocean.

On a similarly confused note is there some sort of legal distinction between Sodomy and Bu***ry? The two words do not seem to be used by the judiciary in quite the same way.

Regards,

Tielhard

PS: I have had some complaints that some people cannot always tell when I am being serious and when I am pulling the collective leg. Just to clarify this post is serious I am looking for clarification, the post above is not.

I would certainly appreciate some clarification on this particular case, but for the generalize statement I made it is not necessary; unless I am wrong of course. If an adult has sex, oral or otherwise, with an underage teenager, in the US that is a crime. The fact that it was his niece is just that much more distasteful - IMHO.

But to answer your question, many sodomy laws in the US define both anal and oral sex as sodomy, such as in Louisiana where the above case occurred.

DieHard, I am just curious as to why you don't see sodomy laws as an invasion of privacy. Why is wire tapping any worse than the government invading the privacy of your bedroom to regulate what goes on between you and your sexual partner? The fact that these laws are difficult to enforce is besides the point--why should such laws even exist? They give the government jurisdiction over very private matters between consenting adults. In my mind, at least, that's clearly an invasion of privacy.

Again, I'm reading between the lines, since the site I found didn't go into a lot of detail, but---apparently in Georgia the age of consent is 16, so the girl was of legal age and statuatory rape would not apply. Powell also had penile-vaginal sex with his niece during the same encounter, which is where the rape charge arose.

What I can't figure out is how the jury managed to convict him of sodomy, if the DA hadn't charged him with it! Apparently it was his own testamony on the stand that brought up the whole sodomy issue.

DieHard, I am just curious as to why you don't see sodomy laws as an invasion of privacy. Why is wire tapping any worse than the government invading the privacy of your bedroom to regulate what goes on between you and your sexual partner? The fact that these laws are difficult to enforce is besides the point--why should such laws even exist? They give the government jurisdiction over very private matters between consenting adults. In my mind, at least, that's clearly an invasion of privacy.

Chelsea, I certainly see your point, but for me it is only a matter of semantics, if that is the right word. "Invasion of privacy" and "right to privacy" have become catchphrases for every cause under the sun and have lost some meaning for me. I prefer to think of laws regulating consensual adult sex as "stupid". And that extends to prostitution laws also. I don't think these laws should exist but I don't get overly worried about them either. I guess I would change my mind if I was the one facing prison though, wouldn't I? Laws are invasive by nature; most protect us from the guilty but a few are punitive to the innocent. The latter should be removed from the books.

I won't comment on this particular case anymore because the information keeps changing and I keep regretting my comments. FIM (foot in mouth) disease. But I don't feel sorry for an adult male being convicted of sodomy with an underaged child whether that child says it was consensual or not - that's a different ball of wax.