Michigan Lawmakers Tried To Solve Flint Water Crisis By Banning Buttsex
You might not think of Michigan as being in the running for finding the gays the ickiest, but it's right up there with somewhere like West Virginia or Oklahoma or Kentucky. Thinking about the gays just makes the Michigan state Senate want to get down on its knees and take it -- and by take it, we mean it wanted toeffectively reaffirm the state's sodomy ban until it got publicly called out on it.
On February 5, the Michigan State Senate decided to use SB 219, a bill designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers, to modify and reaffirm the state's (unconstitutional) sodomy ban, which declared dumper pumping a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Because homosexuality and bestiality are the same, obviously. Here's the text:
Sec. 158. (1) A person who shall commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or if the defendant was a sexually delinquent person at the time of the offense, a felony punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life.
So, looks like Michigan wanted to charge people under the grave offense of Loitering With Intent To Do Butt Stuff. But wait, you say! Weren't sodomy bans declared unconstitutional back in 2003? Correct! After the Supreme Court invalidated anti-sodomy laws based on the U.S. Constitution's Errybody Gets To Do It In The Pooper Clause in Lawrence v. Texas, all anti-sodomy laws were immediately wiped from existence and everyone lived happily ever after in a magical gay realm filled with brunches and rainbow flags and extremely tasteful home decor.
[contextly_sidebar id="xnjf1rpXnfL7Gep24WcPvzRM5lUaAnb3"]Unfortunately 14 states did not get the memo they were on the wrong side of history, and have since adamantly refused to remove their anti-sodomy statutes from the books: Idaho, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma (we knew it'd show up here somewhere!), Kansas, and (hilariously, if perhaps not surprisingly) Texas. Let's shame them for sucking, because they all suck harder than it should be physically possible to suck.
But because of Lawrence v. Texas, these laws are all utterly unenforceable. So if the state of Michigan had charged someone under this law, that ruling would have be declared unconstitutional and the defendant exonerated faster than you can say "Antonin Scalia loves mansex."
[contextly_sidebar id="thPhP6FnQLcXOrNDTubKZJXhhUj6PiJK"]The Michigan state legislature has to be smart enough to know this (after all, it's not like it's the South Dakota state legislature), which means this was purely intended as a giant middle finger to the gays. Those icky gays, ewwwww, so gross the Michigan legislature just can't stop thinking about them ramming their turgid gay agenda down the Michigan state legislature's throat. Hold on, the Michigan state legislature has to go run to the bathroom to take care of something real quick.
But there is good news! As we alluded to above, and apparently in response to public pressure, SB 219 will, in fact, not be moving forward with the sodomy ban intact. The specific details of what led to the sudden shift in position are not entirely clear, but the New Civil Rights Movement is claiming it's in direct response to its original post on the subject and the subsequent outcry. Assuming that's true, good job, NCRM!
[contextly_sidebar id="BnFv8zkV7EGApqLaFX4BpFvSdWOYxf6P"]Anyway, it's a good thing Michigan doesn't have any bigger problems to worry about right now, like, just to name an example completely and totally at random, a massive crisis involving horrifically poisoned water and an executive branch whose approach to the poor is "Let Them Eat Cake." If it did, it would make moves like this look massively fucked up, huh?