What now Log Cabin Republicans?

[BrightNShiny]

Sorry, but that is incorrect under the Texas sex offender registration statute.

Thanks for clearing that up, Minty.

John Mace:
I’m not defending the law or the position. Just saying that it’s overreacting to take the position that Republicans want to put gay folks in jail.

I think you’re nitpicking a bit. While it may be technically correct to point out that the law doesn’t require jail, clearly the intent of the law is to treat gay people as criminals, the intent of the 2002 Republican party plank is to treat gay people as criminals. Given the statements in the plank, its perhaps hyperbolic to say Republicans want gays in jail, but it’s not an unreasonable statement.

[John_Mace]

Bright: How often are these sodomy laws enforced? Maybe I’m giving them too much slack, but I really do believe that those Republicans that don’t want to “decriminalize” sodomy justy feel they need to give gay sex some sort of social stigma. I think they couldn’t care less whether the laws are enforced or not, but just want to go on record as saying gay sex is immoral. And yes, even that position is inexcusable. I think the LCRs are looking forward a few years where this will be an anacronism in the GOP.

You can say I’m giving them too much of a pass, but how many people have been arrested in the last 10 years on sodomy charges in the US? I don’t have the figures, but I bet you could count them on the fingers of one hand. If arrests for sodomy were an everyday occurance, I’d be more concerned. There are lots of silly laws on the books, and these are (or were, now that we’re post SCotUS decision) right up there with the silliest.

[minty_green]

Enforcement is far from the only issue. Sodomy laws were used to justify many forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians. As Justice Kennedy put it for the Supreme Court:

If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. . . .

The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of their criminal convictions. Just this Term we rejected various challenges to state laws requiring the registration of sex offenders. Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. __ (2003); Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U. S. 1 (2003). We are advised that if Texas convicted an adult for private, consensual homosexual conduct under the statute here in question the convicted person would come within the registration laws of a least four States were he or she to be subject to their jurisdiction. Pet. for Cert. 13, and n. 12 (citing Idaho Code §§18-8301 to 18-8326 (Cum. Supp. 2002); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., §§15:540-15:549 (West 2003); Miss. Code Ann. §§45-33-21 to 45-33-57 (Lexis 2003); S. C. Code Ann. §§23-3-400 to 23-3-490 (West 2002)). This underscores the consequential nature of the punishment and the state-sponsored condemnation attendant to the criminal prohibition. Furthermore, the Texas criminal conviction carries with it the other collateral consequences always following a conviction, such as notations on job application forms, to mention but one example.

Incidentally, a fair number of people are arrested, tried, and convicted of sodomy every year. Usually, however, those people were arrested in circumstances other than private, noncommercial, consensual sex, e.g., prostitution, public sex, sexual abuse, etc. The arrests of those two guys down in Houston were very unusual in that respect, since they were in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Re: “crux of the matter.”

:o

[plnnr]

Nancy Pelosi is NOT the House Minority Whip. She is the House Minority Leader.

[John_Mace]

Minty:

I am not trying to justify sodomy laws. I think they’re bad, just as you do. The real issue of this thread is why the LCRs don’t abandon the GOP. I offered a theory-- that gay people don’t necessary use “gay issues” as the sole determination of which party to support, which a few gay posters have concurred with. So, what is your response to the OP? Clearly there are thoughtful gay individuals who are well aware of the sodomy laws and theiir implication, yet they remain the GOP. Why do you think that is so?

We actually don’t disagree on the fact that sodomy laws should not exist. I’d be surprised if we disagreed on the reason why the LCRs remain in the GOP. I don’t think it’s that difficult a puzzle.