Continuing the hijack, I always thought it would make an elegant and pointed protest against state sodomy laws (those that don’t target only homosexuals, that is) if large numbers of heterosexuals who’ve had oral or anal sex picked a day to get together and march down to the local police station to turn themselves in for breaking the law. The sight of all those police officers trying to shoo all the repentant miscreants out of the station couldn’t help underlining the absurdity of having a law on the books that everybody breaks and nobody wants to enforce—except against homosexuals. We could call the movement “Come Clean Day”. 
If it’s a Gay/Straight Alliance, I doubt the straight kids are there to learn about gay sex.
Esprix
There’s an addition to those left over “sodomy” laws in Massachusetts by the way. (Sorry to keep this hijack going for so long). In this state, it’s not possible to “consent to assault” and therefore the “aggressor” in a couple who’s engaging in spanking or some similar act can be arrested. It’s not necessary for the spankee to press charges.
Consequently, this law IS enforced in this state. And arrests along these lines end up in the newspaper, complete with photographs of the “offending parties.”
I’m heading off to turn myself in now.
-L
One of these clubs was started at our school towards the begining of the year. Our Principle would not condone posters and banners being hung around the school, so everyone was very upset with him. But it turned out that he couldn’t let the posters go up b/c it wasn’t a school-sponsored club…guess that makes sense.
I support the club, and I attended a couple meetings (I was a straight member)
Bricker,
By the reasoning in the OP (and yes, I know you are playing devil’s advocate), any student organization that advocated a change in any (criminal) law would have to be banned.
That’s not a result we want - change in the law can be a good thing.
Sua
**Kimstu wrote:
The sight of all those police officers trying to shoo all the repentant miscreants out of the station couldn’t help underlining the absurdity of having a law on the books that everybody breaks and nobody wants to enforce—except against homosexuals. We could call the movement “Come Clean Day”.**
sigh Almost makes me want to turn straight!
And even furthering the hi-jack; does anyone know if the sodomy laws have ever been challenged on a religious discrimination basis?
In other words, those laws are primarily based on a Judeo-Christian ethic, specificially from Leviticus and Paul’s writing. Isn’t that really codifying specific religious practices into secular law? Since there’s no rational basis otherwise for criminalizing homosexual acts this makes the various sodomy laws a violation of the first amendment’s prohibition against advancing a particular religion.
Generally, “police power” laws (ranging from penal to zoning, the “police” not referring to uniformed guys with badges but to the community’s power to police its own affairs) are founded on ground-law (constitution or general statute) enabling the state or community to protect its “health, safety, and general welfare.”
Courts have traditionally considered that the protection of the “moral welfare” of the community is a valid exercise of this power. Now, I will grant you quite readily that IMHO consensual adult sex of any form is not necessarily a problem to the “moral welfare of the community.” But I think you would be quick to grant that there are those who feel otherwise. And this can be something as non-religious as Joe Redneck who thinks it’s “natural” to pick up a girl at the bar, but “them fags has got to be kept in their place – and their place is far away from hyar.” (Sorry for the offensive language.)
As I said, I’m not suggesting the idea is right – but it has a “secular morality” aspect that the courts will in fact uphold, where “because the Bible says so” would put it into the “state using its authority to advocate a religious belief” category, and therefore be unconstitutional.
(I’m beginning to understand why Melin, Jodi, and other lawyers get frustrated at having to say what the law is and being mistaken as having said what they thought it should be. I hope you see the distinction between my feelings, which I’m sure you are aware of, and an attempt to state a legal doctrine I find questionable but the courts tend to uphold.)