crime against nature:oral sex/sodomy/anal sex even if its your wife

[natina]

In New Orleans, a first-time conviction of prostitution is charged as a misdemeanor. It can also, however, be charged as a first-time felony with a person facing up to a possible 5 years in prison and the requirement to register as a sex offender. The offense will be carried out as the latter only if it is classified as a “crime against nature.”

A crime against nature is one that involves unnatural copulation, or oral and anal sex. Vaginal sex is not a part of this because it is not seen as unnatural. So, it can be assumed that breaking this law can be seen as largely targeting the gay and transgendered populations. How can a law that was adopted in 1805 and that so clearly promotes bigotry still be in place? Thankfully, on February 16, a file was made to challenge this bullshit.

http://sexculturepolitics.wordpress....-crime-at-all/

[BiBoyinBeantown]

I'm no lawyer, but I think they're going to find that law thrown out rather quickly with Lawrence v. Texas constituting precedent. Massachusetts had a similar law on the books criminalizing sodomy:

Ch. 272 § 34: Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

Lawrence didn't invalidate state statutes against prostitution but I think the portion of it that specifically turns it into a felony if certain sexual acts are involved will probably get overturned.

This kind of crap is also why I'm against "Megan's Law" sex-offender lists. It'd be great if inclusion on those lists were only enforced against those who were truly sexual predators who put the public at risk, but all too often that's not the way it works.

And I wish they'd legalize sex work while they were at it. Like any other kind of prohibition, it only forces the trade underground, makes it tougher for sex workers to quit the business, and makes it more likely that sex workers are going to be the victims of violence and exploitation.

[danthepoetman]

Incredible that this is still in place. But most everywhere, such laws have been repelled pretty recently. Not much before the 70s in a lot of industrialized country, if memory serves. Amazing that it would still be there in New Orleans.

[natina]

1845 statute prohibiting cross-dressing. As originally enacted, the New York statute made it a crime to assemble “disguised” in public places

an arrestable offence
the 1845 statute that made it a crime in the state to masquerade
Attention divas, daggers, dykes, sissies and studs: sashay shante, y’all. According to Oakland's Code of Ordinances, your style is illegal.

Immoral Dress Code 9.08.080 has been in place since 1879: “It is unlawful for any person in the city to appear in any public place nude or in the attire of a person of the opposite sex, or in any indecent or lewd attire.”
In terms of concentration of same sex couples, Oakland is ranked among the top five major metropolitan areas in the nation. Certainly our city is as socially conscious as it is diverse. Yet shockingly, in 2010, cross-dressing remains an offense “against public peace and decency.”
I first learned of this wacky time warp while attending an Oakland LGBT Roundtable meeting. Stephanie McLeod, pictured above,an intern with City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan’s office, created a slide show presentation which contextualized the ordinance.
The civil war ended and the 15th amendment was ratified. Population explosions accompanied the gold rush and the transcontinental railroad; the latter saw Oakland grow from 1,500 people in 1860 to more than 36,000 in 1880. As the railroad’s western terminus, Oakland experienced a rush of new businesses, new manufacturing industries and new jobs. Migrants from the south, and immigrants from China and Southern Europe, changed the demographics of the area.
“People who were not perceived to be part of the social ‘norm’ were marginalized and criminalized,” said McLeod. “Everyone is affected by this, not just queer people. If this law was enforced today, all the women on the police and fire departments could be charged with a misdemeanor for cross-dressing.”
Though I have been out of the closet for 18 years, I admit sometimes I avoid learning about atrocities of the past; I'm already overwhelmed and frustrated by present day inequality. But after McLeod's presentation, I got curious.
San Francisco preceded Oakland with a similar law in 1866. By 1930, most cities in California had dress code laws. From the mid-19th century, the state enacted all kinds of legislation against LGBT behavior; convictions led to forced sterilization, castration, indefinite hospitalization and life imprisonment. The law lumped child molesters and homosexuals together as “perverts.” Women suffragists wore pants in protest. German theorist Karoly Maria Kertbeny disputed the criminalization of “homosexuality” (a term he coined). Racist medical texts linked the idea of "degenerate" races with "degenerate" sexualities.
In the wake of immigration legislation in Arizona, legislation that enables racial profiling, can we afford to leave vague laws on the books, laws that are subject to the interpretation of the times? Political climates change. In 1850, the state of California outlawed “crimes against nature.” Before 1900, this mainly applied to public sex, rape, and sex with a minor. But the early 20th century experienced a heightened anxiety over visible gender difference in urban communities, and homosexuals were increasingly arrested for “crimes against nature.”
As McLeod emphasized, “It could happen again.”
Shush! What’s that sound? Is it the bang of 1,000 fairies fainting in disbelief, falling to the floor? Nope. It’s the vogue boom of butch-queens dropping into suicide dips, their backs clapping the ground. An elegant tranny lip syncs Mary J. “You can’t keep a good woman down

[danthepoetman]

Wow! also very troubling, Natina.
We still have a long way to go, but this is to show just from how far we’re coming! We live in a much more open society. But yes, listening to some right wing politicians, it’s not inconceivable that some would like to bring us back there!

[Cecil Rhodes]

In Gainesville, Ga. it is unlawful to eat fried chicken by any method other than your hands

[danthepoetman]

In Gainesville, Ga. it is unlawful to eat fried chicken by any method other than your hands

LOL! Is it a misdemeanor, Cecil, or a criminal offence?

[Cecil Rhodes]

In Gainesville, Ga the Af-Ams can't have a parade thru the Hood on MLK Day or any other day for that matter

[natina]

Death Penalty For Rebellious Children

Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book

Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.

According to the Arkansas Times, Fuqua wrote:

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1948490.html

[Cecil Rhodes]

Muslims call for the death of all non-muslims; ie; infidels