Friday, March 13, 2009

New Attempt at North Carolina Anti-Bullying Law

Last year, North Carolina legislators tried to pass an anti-bullying law that protected gay students. It was defeated in part because of conservative opposition. Anti-Bullying Law Debated in North Carolina A similar law has been introduced this year and is now being debated. Text of law; Pam's House Blend discussion of law. The law protects students from bullying behavior based on a litany of "differentiating characteristics," including sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.

The mind boggles at how conservatives could oppose a law that protects children from bullying. This item from Concerned Women for America, a conservative organization, gives some insight. They object to including sexual orientation as a protected characteristic on the grounds that it's an unnecessary and undeserved "special right." They seem to argue that all children should be protected against bullying, with no one singled out for special protection. This makes no sense if the very reason a child is being bullied is perceived difference based on a protected category. They also raise the apparently horrifying specter that including sexual orientation in the list of protected characteristics will somehow give gay activists leverage in lobbying for more civil rights. (because that would obviously be the end of civilization as we know it.)

Again and again, anti-gay conservatives resist acknowledging the existence and reality of gay people. They really want to pretend we don't even exist (and would we please go away and shut up, because it's just icky and gross). They should really grow up and get over it. Yes, some children know they are gay from an early age, and so do all the other children around them. Children can be cruel to those who are different. Gay teens actually commit suicide because they are gay. Family Equality Council post about anti-gay bullying

Anti-Bullying Sponsors Seeks to Legalize Sodomy in N.C. I came across this little gem when searching for info on the anti-bullying legislation. This is an example of the completely irrational thinking engaged in by conservatives obsessed with homosexuality:

Representative Glazier's bill is entitled, "Conform State Law to Lawrence v. Texas," an innocuous title unless you know that Lawrence v. Texas was the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the sodomy laws in Texas. If Representative Glazier had wanted the average "Joe" to know what his bill was about, he would have entitled it, "Repeal Sodomy Laws in North Carolina." From the man who brought us the "Anti-Bullying" bill, we now have the "Pro-Sodomy" bill.

Leaders in our General Assembly clearly need to hear from people and pastors all across North Carolina about how ridiculou [stet] this bill is. Besides being unnecessary, it is clearly the first step in a series of many by pro-homosexual activists to attempt to legalize the sexual practices that prevail in same-sex marriages. First they must do away with the crime of sodomy. Next, they must abolish the law against cohabitation; then they must abolish the law that prevents homosexuals from adopting children; and finally they will attempt to legalize same-sex relationships. It is always a gradual process—just ask Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Where to start? First, Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas law that criminalized sodomy because it violated the federal constitution. So, all other state laws outlawing sodomy are also unconstitutional. The North Carolina law is therefore a mere technicality. It can't be enforced. Therefore, it should be taken off the books. This idiot acts like sodomy is still illegal in North Carolina, not to mention the mere fact of being in a "same-sex relationship".

Furthermore, male-female couples can engage in sodomy, so technically, anti-sodomy laws apply to them too. But they usually were enforced only against same-sex couples. In North Carolina, sodomy is "a crime against nature" (N.C. Gen. Statutes 14-177). ""Crime against nature" has been defined by North Carolina courts as "sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature," including all "acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified." While this definition is incredibly broad, enough so that it could conceivably include masturbation or sexual positions once thought "unnatural," the CAN law is now only used in cases involving oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and anal intercourse." from North Carolina Gay Advocacy Legal Alliance website Clearly, different sex couples can engage in these sexual activities as well as same sex ones. So the "sexual practices that prevail in same-sex marriages" referred to above are many of the same ones that prevail in male-female marriages.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

WTF? Although, really, it's North Carolina, so why am I surprised?

-dvanulya, too lazy/in a hurry to log in