sodomy, anal sex, ban, black, man, sexy, underwear, briefs, illegal, kiss this goodbye
sodomy, anal sex, ban, black, man, sexy, underwear, briefs, illegal, kiss this goodbye

Michigan Senate Approves Anti-Sodomy Bill, But(t) Why?

Remember the good ol’ days when you couldn’t have same-sex intercourse without the police possibly barging into your home and arresting your naked, queer ass? Yeah, that was only 13 years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick,and Michigan Republicans wanna go back to that golden age of anti-gay harassment by making sodomy and oral sex illegal again. Their reasoning? It’ll help protect animals… or something.

This last Thursday amid the Flint water crisis, the Michigan Senate passed SB 291 also known as “Logan’s Law”, an animal cruelty bill that aims to prevent anyone convicted of animal cruelty from adopting an animal.

Logan’s Law — which was actually named after a dog that had acid poured on it (yeesh) — would be a great law if it weren’t for an antiquated-sounding line that reads: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”

A “crime against nature” is generally understood to mean sodomy — that is, anal or oral sex between gay, bi or straight individuals, consensual or not. In this case, this “felony” would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Conceivably, the weird “crime against nature” line is there to prevent humans from having buttsecks with animals — something that has really caught on in Florida… no really, Google “pit bull sex florida” and see how many returns you get; it’s unbelievable. But by saying that humans aren’t allowed do oral or anal with other others humans, it creates a dangerous legal situation.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws nationwide, the average legislator and police officer may not know that (scary, we know). If they see a law on the books forbidding sodomy, they may well enforce it meaning that some poor schmoe could get arrested, publicly shamed and then thrown in jail or court before anyone points out that the law was bullshit to begin with. That’s lots of lost time, money, reputation not to mention potential lawsuits against the county, city and state.

Michigan, senator, Rick Jones, hunter, hunting, turkey, animal cruelty
Michigan State Senator Rick Jones shot this turkey (which some might consider animal cruelty). But the more important question is: did he have sex with it? If so, he should read our guide to fucking turkeys and then go promptly to prison for 15 years, as specified under his own law.

When journalist John Wright tried contacting the bill’s author to ask why the hell the anti-sodomy language is in there to begin with, Republican state Senator Rick Jones (a man who hunts animals by the way, animal cruelty be damned), responded with a long, rambling non-answer:

“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing It’s because nobody wants to touch it. They say the courts have ruled, so walk away from the issue… In my opinion, the only way you’d ever get rid of that particular law you’re talking about is if you had a mass law that dealt with 100 different laws that are unconstitutional, and that just happens to be one of them, but if you focus on it, people just go ballistic, and I know what happens.”

So… according to Jones, it doesn’t matter that he included a human sodomy ban in an animal rights bill because it’s unconstitutional in the first place… but he can’t remove the line because there’d be a big outcry… so he might as leave the line that he didn’t need to include in the first place… because it doesn’t matter.

Make sense? That was a trick question. No. No, it does not.

The dual-tragedy is that Jones’ dumbshit move to stick it to the gay-bisexual-oral-buttsex lovers may well derail Logan’s Law as public awareness and outcry grow against its needless provision. The state House of Representatives has yet to vote on the bill, but if they do, it’ll either be sent back to the Senate for a revision or die in a House vote because of even conservatives representatives might have an issue with banning blowjobs.