Louisiana votes to keep anti-gay law on the books despite its unconstitutionality

The Louisiana House voted 66-27 on Tuesday to keep the state's unconstitutional sodomy ban under Louisiana’s crimes against nature law.

The Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision invalidated all state bans on gay sex, declaring them unconstitutional. But Louisiana, along with several other states, has refused to strike the provision from state law. On Tuesday, the House rejected a bill, sponsored by state Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith (D), that would have done just that.

The statute that bans sodomy cannot be used as a cause for arrest, but Smith told The Times-Picayune that she introduced the legislation after East Baton Rouge Parish sheriffs' deputies arrested more than a dozen men suspected of “attempted crimes against nature.”

"We want to be fair to the law enforcement individuals,” Smith said during a committee hearing last week, according to The Times-Picayune. “We don't need inefficient bills on our statutes that they cannot take to a prosecutor.”

Advocates of the law, including the conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum, argued that the statute protects children from aggravated "crimes against nature," although Smith pointed out that at least a dozen other laws protect minors from sexual assault.

In a letter urging Louisiana lawmakers to reject the proposal, the influential Christian lobbying organization wrote, “Louisiana’s anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral.”

In a hearing earlier this month, Bill Smith, a member of the Louisiana Family Forum, told committee members that anti-sodomy laws save the lives of gay people by decreasing their exposure to HIV.

"I have homosexuals in my family. I'm here out of love and concern for the health of these people," Smith said in April. "The fact is this opens up ways for them to really kill themselves."

Although Patricia Haynes Smith did not believe the bill would pass, she expressed dismay at the overwhelming numbers that opposed the effort.

"I never thought it would pass, but I thought it would do better," Smith told The Times-Picayune. "Some of the folks who voted to get it out of committee voted against it on the floor."

veya_victaous wrote:well i guess its better than a law that will be enforced   

jaded fox wrote:Just because I like to point out the unintentionally funny of stuff like this....

Usually sodomy covers all anal and oral sex or is so poorly defined that you could stretch the law to cover anything but penis to vaginal sex. In one case I think a law mentioned vaginal only was legal which was great for lesbians.

Here's the point. If anyone can get a pic of anyone of the people who approved the bill getting a blow job or getting eaten out then you could technically have them arrested. Thoughts like that make me happy.

Edited to add: Theres a german word for that. Schafrunde or something. Anyone know? It sort of means taking joy in the suffering of someone else.

Ben_Reilly wrote:New Orleans is a fantastic city, one of the truly unique places in the world. Outside of that, LA is pretty meh.

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Well NYC is a very large population, so naturally communicable diseases will spread more quickly.  But HIV is not nearly the problem in the Americas that it is in Africa, where most of it is transmitted via childbirth.

Original Quill wrote:But one of the excuses for this law is the allegation of HIV transmission.  My point is that sodomy is not a chief means.  In fact, it is no more an HIV threat than any other kind of sex.

Africa presents a much larger population of HIV-infected people, and a larger sample yields much better test results.  In Africa, the conclusion is that the most prevalent means of HIV transmission is childbirth.

You don't get childbirth with homosexual sex.  Ergo, the greater means of HIV transmission is heterosexual activity.

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Not really. Most gay men are not HIV+. How does a law banning anal sex help two male lovers without HIV avoid becoming positive? IT is bollocks, and just an attempt to impose bigoted laws on peoples lives.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Not really. Most gay men are not HIV+. How does a law banning anal sex help two male lovers without HIV avoid becoming positive? IT is bollocks, and just an attempt to impose bigoted laws on peoples lives.

Does it not cover sodomy in heterosexual people too?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does it not cover sodomy in heterosexual people too?

This Bill Smith in the OP says he is doing this to help gay people- either way the fact is less than 1% of people are actually HIV+. There is NOTHING benign about this law- it is purely homophobic crap wrapped in a bow of phoney righteousness.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

This Bill Smith in the OP says he is doing this to help gay people- either way the fact is less than 1% of people are actually HIV+. There is NOTHING benign about this law- it is purely homophobic crap wrapped in a bow of phoney righteousness.

Yes, probably. I was only making a scientific observation anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Not really. Most gay men are not HIV+. How does a law banning anal sex help two male lovers without HIV avoid becoming positive? IT is bollocks, and just an attempt to impose bigoted laws on peoples lives.

Does it not cover sodomy in heterosexual people too?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, probably. I was only making a scientific observation anyway.

Perhaps you could provide some scientific stats to back up your ridiculous claim?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, probably. I was only making a scientific observation anyway.

Perhaps you could provide some scientific stats to back up your ridiculous claim?

Look it up yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
This Bill Smith in the OP says he is doing this to help gay people- either way the fact is less than 1% of people are actually HIV+. There is NOTHING benign about this law- it is purely homophobic crap wrapped in a bow of phoney righteousness.

Yes, probably. I was only making a scientific observation anyway.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Look it up yourself.

There is no evidence suggesting that HIV is spread more readily through anal sex than it is through vaginal sex. That "look it up yourself" comment is a cop-out.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They've got a point about HIV transmission though.

Not really. Most gay men are not HIV+. How does a law banning anal sex help two male lovers without HIV avoid becoming positive? IT is bollocks, and just an attempt to impose bigoted laws on peoples lives.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Not really. Most gay men are not HIV+. How does a law banning anal sex help two male lovers without HIV avoid becoming positive? IT is bollocks, and just an attempt to impose bigoted laws on peoples lives.

I agree.
It is all about control and rooted in bigotry and prejudice.

Original Quill wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree.
It is all about control and rooted in bigotry and prejudice.

To further the point, 50-years ago when there was an HIV epidemic among the homosexual community in North America, it was traced back to the same bigoted laws.  Laws prohibiting gay sex tend to drive the practice underground, just as with laws prohibiting drugs, abortion or prostitution.  Once a practice is driven underground, it tends to become more casual and less careful.  Just as with women who are forced to undergo a coat-hanger abortion, it is the law that is causative of higher frequency of perniciousness.  

Thus, HIV-transmission has less to do with gay sex practices, and more to do with the law itself.  Thus, the more we legitimize gay marriage, the less the harm that is caused.