Enkidu’s
Introduction:
A
couple of days ago, I discovered by coincidence a webpage with the
stated purpose of being nothing more than a place where you can spend
some time and get a laugh. In the introduction we can read:
At
Dribbleglass.com, you’re encouraged to “drink deeply from the
Dribble Glass of Life.” Life is too important to take seriously!
And
it is indeed a nice place to totally waste some irretrievable moments
of your life, and you will probably find something that makes you
laugh sooner or later before you leave the page again and go on with
your life and forget all about it.
Among the many trivia on the page, there is also a list with
funny sex laws. Some of these laws are historical. We can for instance
read that:
Six thousand
years ago, Egyptians, the first to punish sex crimes with
castration, would completely castrate a male convicted of rape. A
woman found guilty of adultery would find herself without a nose,
the thinking being that without a nose, it would be harder to find
someone to share in her adulterous ways.
In 100 A.D., the
Teutons, an Germanic tribe, would punish anyone caught as a
prostitute by suffocating them in excrement.
The vow of a
Roman vestal virgin lasted 30 years. If she engaged in sex before
then, she was punished by being buried alive.
To
contemporary readers in the West (here defined in its broadest sense,
including Europe and the “neo-Europes” around the globe),
brutalities of this kind sound like an echo from a distant past. We
may think; how good that we are living in enlightened and civilized
historical epoch, that we have moved on. We also know, of course, that
there are other contemporary societies, exotic places far away, like
Abu Dhabi or perhaps Borneo, where unfaithful wives are stoned to
death and homosexuals might risk decapitation… But at least in the
Western world, such cruel practices and laws were abandoned centuries
ago, and thank goodness for that…
Most
of the bizarre laws regulating sexual behaviour between consenting
adults listed on this page, however, are not just historical or
anachronistic testimonies of human intolerance, ignorance and cruelty
of the past. The large majority of them, in fact are painfully
contemporary, and still in effect, not in Saudi Arabia or Burkina
Faso, but in the United States of America…
Nobody
is convicted to be burned alive in The United States or stoned to
death, at least not sanctioned by law. It is indeed the only Western
democracy still practising capital punishment, an anachronism in
itself, but more modern, allegedly “humane” execution methods are
employed today and normally not for sexual offences. However, no other
western contemporary societies impose more regulations on voluntary
sexual behaviour between consenting adults than the United States.
Most of the American laws listed on the mentioned page make us
Europeans just shake our heads in disbelief and indignation. Some of
these laws are just ridiculous and simply stupid. In Florida for
instance, it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine, and in
Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse with a
living fish… The laws applying to human sexual behaviour, however,
are often equally ridiculous, but they send out a disturbing signal.
Some examples (and there are plenty more on the page):
In Alabama,
it’s against the law for a man to seduce “a chaste woman by
means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery or a promise of
marriage.”
In Oxford, Ohio,
it’s illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing while standing
in front of a man’s picture.
An excerpt from
Kentucky state legislation: “No female shall appear in a bathing
suit on any highway within this state unless she be escorted by at
least two officers or unless she be armed with a club.”
The only
acceptable sexual position in Washington, D.C. is the missionary
position. Any other sexual position is considered illegal.
Connecticut still
retains an old law forbidding any kind of “private sexual behavior
between consenting adults.” This odd law makes absolutely no
distinction between married and single couples.
The Louisiana
House of Representatives hurriedly approved a unique anti-streaking
law. Under it, streakers can be sentenced to five years in the state
penitentiary and given a $2,000 fine for streaking “while
intending to arouse the desires of minors.” Streaking with only
the “intent of arousing sexual desire” brings a violator a $100
fine and one year in prison.
In Nebraska,
buggery, or anal copulation, can bring a whopping 20 years in the
penitentiary. And buggery in Pennsylvania can bring transgressors a
$5,000 fine and 10 years at hard labor.
South
Carolina’s Code of Laws 16-412 includes “the abominable crime of
buggery.” A $500 fine and five years in prison are the punishment.
Buggery in Maryland brings a one-to-10-year prison term. Anyone in
Kansas caught engaging in this activity draws a maximum sentence of
six months in jail.
Indiana and
Wyoming both have laws against anyone’s enticing, alluring,
instigating, or helping a person under 21 to masturbate. This
activity is known in legal circles as an act of “self
pollution.”
Michigan law
prescribes five years in prison for a man who engages “in acts of
gross indecency, either in public or private.” This includes
mutual masturbation by two men or the simple act of solitary
masturbation.
New Jersey law
threatens men with a three-year sentence for “mutual
masturbation.” The law covers anyone “who, in private, is a
party to an act of lewdness or sexual indecency with another.”
In the state of
Washington there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any
circumstances (including the wedding night).
It’s against the law
in Willowdale, Oregon, for a husband to curse during sex.
Women aren’t allowed
to wear patent-leather shoes in Cleveland, Ohio—the thinking is that
a man might see the reflection of something he shouldn’t.
One
of the big news this summer was that the Supreme Court ruled, with 6
against 3 votes that 2 adults legally and voluntarily are allowed to
have sex in their own home without risking criminal prosecution…
Homosexuals do not anymore risk punishment for indulging in sodomy.
From a European perspective, this may sound as a bad joke, but for the
struggle for gay rights in the United States, it was a major victory:
From now on, what goes on, behind closed doors, in the privacy of a
home between consenting adults is not anymore a matter for the
authorities…
This
does not just concern homosexual individuals, since this law also
affected anal and oral sex between heterosexuals in several states.
The Reverend Jerry Falwell, a Southern Baptist, former leader of the
“Moral Majority”, who critics like to call a member of the
“Christian Taliban”, called U.S. Supreme Court decision “a great
tragedy.” It was the worst day since the Supreme Court legalised
Abortion in 1973. The (in-)famous columnist Cal Thomas did not see
this as the end of the world, but at least the end of the
constitution has arrived…
Now
the United States is faced with a new threat: Gay Marriage… In
another article in Enkidu this week, the German politician Guido
Westerwelle expressed in a comment to the pope’s recent attack on
gay marriages that:
“If a human
being in a same sex partnership takes responsibility for another
individual until death do them apart, that means a value-increase for
the entire society, and not a loss”
In
the United States, however, the same phenomenon might as well be
compared with Sodom and Gomorrah… The following article by Carolyn
Lockhead, from the San Fransisco Chronicle highlights the current
discourse in the US regarding a new attempt by conservative groups to
have an anti-gay marriage amendment written into the constitution….
Open
your eyes and read on
LIOW-LB/Enkidu
Foes
of gay marriage renew push for a ban
’You can’t rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional’
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
| Feedback
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/13/MN282143.DTL
Washington—Religious
conservatives pledge an all-out drive to enshrine a ban on same-sex
marriage in the U.S. Constitution, calling it the last line of defence
against an inevitable court-led destruction of a fundamental social
institution.
Their
Federal Marriage Amendment, after dying with no action in the last
Congress, has been reintroduced, this time with 75 House co-sponsors.
Senate hearings are scheduled for September, and the proposed
amendment has the blessing of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Gay
groups and opponents of the anti-gay-marriage amendment in Congress
say they take it seriously and, privately, express considerable alarm.
“I
think you’ve got this panic on both sides,” said an activist who
talks to religious conservatives and gay rights groups. “The groups
concerned about the gay agenda need to come up with a line in the sand
that works, and gay marriage might. The gay groups don’t mind
politicians being against gay marriage, as long as it’s not written
into the Constitution. They figure they can come back in 10 years when
things have calmed down and revisit it.”
The
Senate Republican Policy Committee, pressing for the amendment, has
argued that “no statutory solution appears to be available”
against what it describes as a legal onslaught on heterosexual
marriage.
As
the Rev. Lou Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, put
it, “You can’t rule a constitutional amendment
unconstitutional.”
COURT RULING
COULD BE KEY
If
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules—as it could any
day—that gay couples have a right to marry in that state, the push
to amend the federal Constitution will pick up more force.
President
Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have said they are awaiting
the Massachusetts court’s decision to determine how to further
“codify” that legal marriage remain the union of a man and a
woman.
Many
read that as support for a constitutional amendment, given that the
1996 Defense of Marriage Act already requires marriage to be between a
man and a woman for federal purposes, such as in the case of taxes and
immigration law, and authorizes states to ignore any same-sex
marriages granted by other states.
“There
are two possibilities with that reference” by Bush, said Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass. “Either he was babbling—which I don’t rule out
entirely—or he’s for a constitutional amendment.”
Frank
and two other openly gay House members, Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and
Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., have circulated a letter to their colleagues
denouncing the amendment.
The
proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would provide a single definition
of marriage for all states. It reads, “Marriage in the United States
shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal
law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal
incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
AMENDMENT FACES
TOUGH SELL
Supporters
acknowledge they face a daunting task to win passage of a
constitutional amendment, which has happened only 17 times in American
history. Amending the Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of
the Senate and House and three-quarters of the state legislatures.
But
advocates of the amendment contend that a Massachusetts court decision
favorable to gays, coming on the heels of Canada’s recognition of
gay marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Lawrence vs.
Texas ruling, which struck down state sodomy laws in an unprecedented
affirmation of gay equality, would make the Constitution the only
remaining potential barrier to same-sex marriage.
“There’s
no question that this is a monumental undertaking, but on the other
hand, this is a defining moment for people of faith,” Sheldon said.
“I believe this issue will be a strong rally point. You won’t have
a problem getting people’s attention.”
The
Family Research Council initially opposed a constitutional amendment
but has reconsidered in light of the Lawrence decision and the pending
Massachusetts case, as well as similar cases in New Jersey, Arizona
and Indiana.
“While
it seems a very arduous way to go, we at this point endorse all legal
answers to what we consider a breakdown of the one-man, one-woman
contract that is marriage,” said Connie Mackey, head of government
affairs for the Family Research Council.
Those
who support the amendment “feel that there’s a very short window
of time in which to move to protect marriage as the cornerstone of
raising a healthy society,” Mackey said. “They feel that they’re
in a position now where they’re going to have to move quickly to
make sure that the courts can’t overstep their bounds.”
SUPPORT FOR
‘96 MARRIAGE ACT
Supporters
say the overwhelming votes for the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in
1996 under President Clinton’s signature, give them a good shot at
prevailing. DOMA, as it is known, passed the Senate 85-14, drawing in
such liberals as Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,
and winning the support of 62 current senators. (California Sens.
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, voted against the
bill.) DOMA swept through the House 342 to 77. Both tallies are well
over the two-thirds needed for an amendment.
Many
gay activists say the marriage debate has come way too early,
politically. “This is a dog issue for us,” one gay activist said.
“The polls are just devastating.”
Baldwin
said the timing for a debate on gay marriage may not be the best, but
“we don’t have that choice when we’re talking the actions of a
court. We can speculate, but we don’t get that choice.”
For
now—pending the Massachusetts decision—gay activists contend they
have nearly enough votes to stop an amendment in the House, where they
need 146, and the Senate, where they need 34.
“We
have indications from roughly 30 to 32 members of the Senate, and the
numbers in the House are in the low 100s,” said Winnie Stachelberg,
political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the strongest gay
lobbying force on Capitol Hill.
Frank
puts the odds of the amendment’s passage as “very slender.”
To
Sheldon’s predictions of success, Frank retorted, “Are you in the
habit of paying attention to that fool? I’m not. That’s on the
record.”
Frank
noted that DOMA passed in part on states’ rights grounds: It allows
a state not to recognize gay marriages from another state. A
constitutional amendment forcing states not to recognize gay marriage,
by contrast, “is a total flip,” he said, noting the Vice President
Dick Cheney argued during the 2000 campaign that marriage should
remain a state domain.
Conservatives
who have long warned that the federal government has too much power
over the states find a constitutional amendment depriving states of
one of their most long-standing jurisdictions—marriage laws—highly
unpalatable. Even a chief DOMA sponsor, former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.,
has said he opposes a constitutional amendment on those grounds.
Roger
Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato
Institute, said the problem with the amendment is that “it defines
marriage for the entire country, which I find inconsistent with the
federalism principle at the core of the Constitution. Family law has
always been a state issue, not a federal issue.”
Pilon
compared the gay marriage amendment to attempts to use the
Constitution to ban flag burning and protect victims’ rights.
E-mail
Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
©2003
San Francisco Chronicle
| Feedback
Si
tienes algun comentario, nos gustaría recibirlo. Sólo escribe y
envia. Nos gustaría saber tu nombre y tu correo electrónico,
pero no es obligatorio. Muchas Gracias.
Atte.
Tu
Los
Martes de Enkidu
