Jump to content

Sorry gay furs, you can't buttfuck in Michigan...

Crazy Lee

Recommended Posts

The titles of these news articles are a bit misleading. There's a law being passed through the Michigan Senate on it's way to the Michigan House (our state has bicameral chambers) to tighten punishments against people who abuse dogs. Supposedly.


The law clarifies (although, I'm not exactly sure HOW this is clarifying anything, just changing elements of sentences to make them less old timey and easier to read) a very old law that prohibits sodomy and bestiality at the same time, because I guess some fundie fucks in the past equated anal sex to brutally abusing a dog. So no, this isn't making sodomy illegal, just updating an unconstitutional law already on the books.

So why doesn't the government just strike that part of the updated law out?


However, Sen. Jones told The New Civil Rights Movement that such an amendment would jeopardize the whole bill. 

"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," Jones (photo, above) said. "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."

Jones added that he believes the only way to repeal the sodomy ban would be a bill striking all unconstitutional laws from the state's books. 

"But if you focus on it, people just go ballistic," he said. "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."

So, in other words, the only way to get rid of one unconstitutional law is to get rid of them all? So, you were able to strike out many different (uncontroversial) parts of that old law, but striking out the part that says "either with mankind or" so it just says "crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal" is too hard? Or is it more likely you're a typical spineless, testicleless Republican who can't lift a finger to do shit?

And can anyone explain to me the part that says "The defendant was a sexually delinquent person at time of offense"? What exactly is a Sexually Delinquent Person? Because if you notice, it raises the sentence to between 1 day to LIFE in prison... I also like how it says "Indeterminate". "Well your a Godless sexual delinquent so we'll throw you in prison for however long we feel.... "

ITT: Politicians being lazy and stupid as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crazy Lee said:

I did not notice that other thread. However, mine clarifies more than it's not a ban, it's just upholding a previous ban.

Perhaps this thread can be merged into that one.

Also, Krypto, you seem very desperate to silence me for some reason.

No? I just relish raining on parades occasionally.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zeke locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...