South African gay couples get legal financial status
In my home state, Texas, I can still be arrested and charged with Sodomy for having sex with another man.
Shit! This pisses me off. Little more than a decade after Apartheid and they’ve progressed this far. It’s been 40 years since Jim Crow was officially defeated. Why is it taking so fucking long here?
Not to refute your rant, which is a good one, but…
You can, but would you? The law may be on the books, but is anyone enforcing it? In my state (MA), it is against the law to kiss in front of a church. But not a lot of people get arrested for it these days.
What exactly do racial relations have to do with same sex marriage?
I dunno, tdn, why don’t you ask that to Michael Hardwick?
Although not directly related in any way I can see, they are both related to bigotry, IMO.
Yes, South Africa, where they believe rape isn’t a serious crime, and having sex with babies can cure AIDS, is a more progressive country than America.
:rolleyes:
Um, that is the point the op was trying to make, he of subpar intellect.
:rolleyes:
Right, but I think Airdisc was trying to say that a country where
is inherantly not progressive.
Homebrew, I sort of agree The Ryan. While it’s true that both racial hatred and homophobia are kinds of bigotry, they’re not directly related, I don’t think. You can be racially tolerant but dislike gays, or be ok with gays and not like other races.
I gather you all missed this story http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s632913.htm
SA does not condone baby rape and if I hear that it does one more time I am going to start knocking heads together. Every country has a collection of despicable people, that does not allow us to make generalisations about that country or its people as a whole.
Please do not think you know anything about me or my country (Australia) from observing Steve Irwin, the crocodile hunter.
Right…I’m not saying that SA condones baby rape…just that Airdisc seemed to suggest it did in his post. I know it doesn’t.
Perhaps it would be better if I asked “What happened to Michael Hardwick?” I haven’t been keeping up with the news, and an internet search turned up nothing.
I wasn’t trying to disqualify the OP, I was simply trying to verify if such arrests (and convictions) are actually being made.
If so, then the OP is pretty horrifying. Can someone provide a cite?
Michael Harwick, of Bowers v. Hardwick, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that:
" The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy"
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sbodurt2/court/cases/bowers.html
and upheld Michael Hardwick’s conviction under a Georgia statue prohibiting such acts.
tdn’s point is valid IMO. In the Hardwick case, the D.A.'s office was not going to prosecute, but the ACLU convinced Hardwick to use him as a test case to challenge the statute. And even the circumstances surrounding his arrest don’t occur often in real life. IIRC, a police officer, after arriving at Hardwick’s residence for an unrelated matter, was allowed into Hardwick’s home by a roommate. The officer was not there specifically to track someone down for engaging in “sodomy”.
(Ironically, when one of the justices in the 5 to 4 majority opinion retired, Justice Powell I believe, he mentioned regretting his decision to side with the majority and would vote differently in hindsight)
tdn, I think a more valid point would be that, although people are not getting arrested en masse for this, since such laws remain in the books, they are often used as a basis to engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Hardwick decision has appeared often in various court rulings justifying the differential treatment of gays and lesbians.
Michael Hardwick died of complications from HIV a few years ago.
El Gui, thank you for clarifying my statement. TDN did ask “The law may be on the books, but is anyone enforcing it?”
The answer to that question is undeniably “yes they are.”
Michael Hardwick is but one of many examples. That the officer came to his residence for another matter is irrelevant. He was caught engaging in sodomy and was arrested for it. It does happen.
It was a 5-4 decision and you are correct that the deciding vote, Justice Powell, had second thoughts about his vote two years later. But that’s also irrelevant. Since the case has never come up again the decision still stands and laws are still on the books.
If I’m not mistaken, “sodomy” is also illegal for straight married couples in many places-no?
Sorry I’ve been so long getting back.
First, Guin, in Texas it is same-sex only that is illegal, as it is in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Idaho, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan and Massachusetts have anti-sodomy laws that apply to both homo- and heterosexuals.
Further, in Texas in 2001, the state supreme court ruled on appeal that the laws are constitutional. The issue came up as an appeal of the conviction of two men arrested in 1998 for having sex in their private home.
And Revtim is correct that bigotry is bigotry. And whether or not it used to arrest people, it is often used against gay people in custody battles and to intimidate.
Ender, yes, I agree it does happen and I listed Powell’s change of opinion not as being relevant, but more as an interesting aside.
My point is the same as Homebrew’s final paragraph.
“How can it be illegal for gays, but not for heterosexuals?”
"Well, because the Supreme Court ruled in Bowers that . . . "
which is to me where the real danger in such laws occur.
Then again, perhaps it’s because I do live in San Francisco, CA, and, as a gay male, can engage in “buggery” all I want without the police busting down my bedroom door. And, although not anywhere near the level of equality afforded to South African gay couples, the domestic partnership registry here in my state, and its limited rights granted to partners, is a step in the right direction.
Doesn’t the South African constitution even explicitly provide for equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation?
While an argument can be made that not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminatory, it absurd to claim that it is bigotry.
Bigotry is bigotry, whether based on race, sexual preference, gender, or the length of one’s nose.
Calling a spade a spade, dammit. Get over yourself, The Ryan. :rolleyes:
Why is being progressive so good? I’m in the political minority here in the SDMB, but hear me out. Everybody is so happy that we are moving “forward” today. That times are so different. Isn’t there a limit? I mean really, isn’t there a limit. We have to conform! Sure, it might not be perfect, but we have to! Just listen. (isn’t it funny how the political left meets the political right at the end of the poles?!) Today, the far left keeps saying that the christian right can’t tell us what is right and wrong. That there is no God, and that we can decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. Well, I mean, if everybody has to decide what is right and wrong and there is NO authority on it (every authority IS opinionated) then everything is okay. I mean, who is to say that murder is not okay? Really! If there is no God, or no greater authority! Why? Why do we have to live under laws that protect other people’s civil rights? Who says that is right? (I’m playing devil’s advocate) Is that the road we’re headed on? Probably not, but that is where it leads. You guys see what I’m saying?
I think the op was saying if a place like sa which was known as a formerly racist place can do this why cant the us supposedly one of the most enlightened and free societies do the same ,