Quantcast
Connect with us

Michigan lawmakers pass bill with unenforceable language criminalizing sodomy

Published

on

Michigan lawmakers approved an animal rights bill that contains unconstitutional language banning sodomy.

The legislation, called Logan’s Law, would ban anyone convicted of animal abuse from owning an animal for five years. The state Senate passed the bill last week.

But the bill, which addresses bestiality, leaves intact language that criminalizes sodomy. The existing state law punishes anal sex and other forms of sodomy with up to a 15-year sentence in prison. It reads in part, “the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or with any animal.”

ADVERTISEMENT

That law is unenforceable due to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down bans on sodomy nationwide.

The bill’s sponsor told The New Civil Rights Movement that attempting to remove the antiquated sodomy ban from the new animal rights legislation could prevent it from passing.

“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) explained to The New Civil Rights Movement. “Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.”

“If we could put a bill in that said anything that’s unconstitutional be removed from the legal books of Michigan, that’s probably something I could vote for, but am I going to mess up this dog bill that everybody wants? No.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Logan’s Law is named after a Siberian Husky that died tragically after having acid intentionally poured over him.

(Correction: This article received significant updates to clarify that Michigan lawmakers are not attempting to ban sodomy, as was originally reported. Raw Story regrets the error.)

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

John Bolton lawyer tells judge his interests do not align with WH chief of staff Mick Mulvaney

Published

on

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton told a federal judge on Monday that his interests do not align with those of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

"A long-simmering feud within the White House broke into the open on Monday as a lawyer for John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, filed a motion trying to keep Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, from joining a lawsuit over impeachment testimony," New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker reported Monday.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s lie about ‘doctored’ impeachment transcripts debunked by impeachment witnesses’ lawyers

Published

on

President Donald Trump on Monday falsely accused Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) of releasing "doctored" transcripts of impeachment inquiry witnesses and then bizarrely suggested that Republicans release their own versions of the transcripts.

"Shifty Adam Schiff will only release doctored transcripts," the president wrote on Twitter. "We haven’t even seen the documents and are restricted from (get this) having a lawyer."

Trump presented no evidence to back up his claim that Schiff had done something to alter the transcripts, which show that multiple administration officials testified that the Trump administration was withholding aid to Ukraine until its government agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump-appointed judge delivers major blow to president’s efforts to keep his taxes secret

Published

on

President Donald Trump on Monday suffered yet another legal defeat in his quest to keep his tax returns a secret -- and it came at the hands of one of the president's own appointees.

CNN reports that Trump-appointed Judge Carl Nichols the of United States District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the president cannot sue the state of New York in his court to prevent the release of his taxes.

In his ruling, Nichols found that Trump's attorneys failed to establish a so-called "conspiracy jurisdiction" based on his accusations that New York Attorney General Letitia James is a co-conspirator with House Democrats in a plot to improperly reveal the president's personal financial information.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image