The history of the Texas law in particular is tangled. Every state criminalized “sodomy” for everybody until the 60s, when Illinois became the first state to remove the law legislatively. Texas re-wrote its statute in the 70s and legalized heterosodomy. The Texas law has been stricken a couple of times by various courts but the Lege keeps re-implementing it. The state can still criminalize sex for money because it has the power to regulate commerce within its borders. As far as polygamy or same-sex marriage are concerned, a decision striking down the sodomy lay may or may not establish precedent regarding those issues depending on the grounds and legal reasoning.
Ummm…Dr. Lao, according to your link, how am I wrong? Everything under the “Deviate sexual intercourse” definition is across the board. There’s no distinction between hetero or homosexual being legal or illegal, just a definition of “Homosexual conduct.” But, the definition of deviate sexual intercourse says:
“One person to another” means man to woman, or man to man, or even woman to woman (if that’s possible, I’ve never tried). It doesn’t mean just one. Unless you can find me another cite that states specifically, these practices are only illegal when engaged between two men, your link proves my statement.
There’s a great documentary called The Dildo Diaries which deals with the laws here in Texas about sex toys and the like, and also has a whole lot of footage of Texas court sessions and interviews with senators about the sodomy laws here in Texas. Sodomy is illegal between a man and woman here in Texas. That was a big argument in the case, and the religious fundy pushers got their way, because according to them, “what married couple would want to engage in such an imorral act?” It’s a stupid law, but it does go accross the board.
El Elvis Rojo, the passage you quoted from the Texas statute simply defines what “deviate sexual conduct” means, when used in this particular chapter of the Texas statutes. The definition by itself doesn’t create an offence.
The offence that is in issue in the Supreme Court case is found in the next section:
As far as I can tell from the rest of the chapter, there is no equivalent offence of “deviate sexual intercourse” between a man and a woman, for acts committed in private.
The reason that the definition is gender neutral is that the phrase “deviate sexual intercourse” is also used in the offence of “public lewdness”:
So, IANATexasL, but it looks to me like a heterosexual couple can do whatever they want, as long as it’s in private, but a homosexual couple doing the same act in private commits an offence.
piffle - hit reply instead of preview. Meant to add, by way of illustrating the function of a definition section in a statue, that the defintion section also defines “sexual intercourse” as ““Sexual intercourse” means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.” That definition, by itself, does not create an offence; it’s when the phrase “sexual intercourse” is used in the “public lewdness” section that an offence is created, and only as stated in that offence section.
And I see that I referred to “deviate sexual conduct” instead of “deviate sexual intercourse.” They really shouldn’t put that “preview” button so close to the “reply” button. :mad:
Dr. Loa, I did see the definition of Homosexual Intercourse, but that in itself isn’t stating that man-to-man sodomy is illegal and man-to-woman sodomy is. A heterosexual male cannot purchase a dildo in Texas, because it is illegal for anything shaped like a penis (including a real penis) to come in contact with any anus. That’s how strung up the people who created the laws are.
I do live in Texas, and I have a lot of friends who discuss this stuff for various reasons. I’ve seen footage of the court arguments for the case, and one of the biggest advocate was a woman who asked Chism (the guy who came up with the laws and managed to get them past) whether or not he felt that even consentual sodomy between a husband and wife should be illegal as well, and he said yes. It’s non-descript in the laws because sodomy, in the mindds of the people who enacted the law, is just plain icky, whether it be between a two men or a man and a woman. A great quote from the debate was when she asked him “So, if I’m with my husband, and he slips and his penis accidentally comes in contact with my anus, I should just stop what I’m doing and immediately run to the police and report myself?”
To which Chism responded “Well, I think your husband should work on his aim.”
The entire debate was one big joke with people everywhere laughing. In the end though, the law got passed, and people across the board in Texas (hetero and homosexual alike) are condemned for engaging in sodomy. The only real difference is it’s easier to recognize that two men are engaging in the act if caught whereas a hetero couple can just pass it off as doggy style. The law was invented to help crack down/stop homosexual “deviance” as these whackjobs call it, but they made it an illegal act for everyone accross the board, including heterosexual, married, consentual couples.
Write your own joke.
Definitions aren’t laws. The definitions in that section aren’t saying what is illegal. What is illegal is “Homosexual conduct.” "(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor."
Texas law may define heterosexual oral and anal sex as “deviate,” but nowhere does it outlaw it.
The fact that one of the arguments being made in the Supreme Court case is that the law violates equal protection by only targeting homosexuals should be a clue that only homosexual sodomy is outlawed.
The law can outlaw anal sex for everybody and still be applied in such a way as to target homosexuals. That’d probably still qualify as a violation of equal protection, I think.
Well, yes it is, actually. It’s a basic principle of criminal law, backed up by the principles of due process, that crimes have to be defined in statutes, so the public knows what acts are prohibited. If an act isn’t prohibited in statute, it’s not an offence.
Here, you’ve got two offences that use the term “deviate sexual intercourse” - § 21.06. Homosexual Conduct, which prohibts “deviate sexual intercourse” between persons of the same sex, and § 21.07. Public Lewdness, which prohibits “deviate sexual intercourse” in public by anyone. There does not appear to be any provision making it an offence for individuals of the opposite sex to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse” in private.
El Elvis, you’re the one who is asserting that in Texas it is illegal for a heterosexual couple to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse” in private. Instead of just repeating that statement, please provide a link to the Texas statute that creates this offence, because so far we’ve not seen it.