X Offender

One way to land on California's registry of sex offenders: be a gay man old enough to have gotten in trouble in the days when homosexual behavior was illegal.

Comments

[andy]

Gotta love America.

Land of the free and home of the ridiculous uptight bigots lacking any common sense whatsoever.

[Dan]

Land of the free and home of the ridiculous uptight bigots lacking any common sense whatsoever

Um, andy, the acts of bigotry described by that article took place 31 and 48 years ago, respectively.

The problem these two men faced stemmed from bureacratic incompetence, not present-day bigotry. The California state government couldn't find its own ass with both hands and a flashlight.

[andy]

Dan,

It wasn't that long ago that two guys in Texas were arrested for humping because a cop went to the wrong address.

And don't think that there's not a lot of people who think homosexuality SHOULD be a crime.

[Jack]

"The California state government couldn't find its own ass with both hands and a flashlight."

And if it did find its ass, it would be forced to register as a sex offender.

[Rhywun]

"But some things have changed since 1956."

Amen.

The problem these two men faced stemmed from bureacratic incompetence, not present-day bigotry.

Ahem, the problem began with PAST bigotry - which lingers today in many parts of the country.

[Dan]

It wasn't that long ago that two guys in Texas were arrested for humping because a cop went to the wrong address

Yes, and most Americans thought the cops were wrong, and the Supreme Court agreed. That's a reality that is impossible to reconcile with your claim that this is the "land of the bigots". If this was "the land of the bigots" those two guys would be on the sex offender registry because they were *supposed* to be there, not because some government functionary fucked up.

Ahem, the problem began with PAST bigotry - which lingers today in many parts of the country

It lingers today in many parts of every single nation in the world.

[andy]

"most Americans thought the cops were wrong, and the Supreme Court agreed."

More than 50%? Probably. But that's not saying much.

And the Supreme Court has agreed to many things to which the populace didn't agree. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade... Just because the Supremes decide something doesn't mean that there's not a whole lot of people who disagree with it.

Look at all the people who listed "moral values*" as the most important factor in this election.

* Meaning their oppressive, reactionary theocratic values

[andy]

Just because the Supremes decide something doesn't mean that there's not a whole lot of people who AGREE with it.

[Ruthless]

Down here in the 'hood, we've gotten so many postcards from Sheriff Simon Leis warning us of sexual deviancy, I've been able to wallpaper my demicube at the bank where I hang.

Before we moved to the 'hood, we didn't realize the concentration of homosexuals.

We are quite copasetic. And secure in our sexuality.
??

[don't not take it the unwrong]

andy,

I have no idea what you think about this issue. Please restate your position, using only one negative per sentence.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Poor little Andy.

[raymond]

Yes, and most Americans thought the cops were wrong, and the Supreme Court agreed. That's a reality that is impossible to reconcile with your claim that this is the "land of the bigots". If this was "the land of the bigots"...

Maybe "most". (_Twice_ you elected him!)

In fact, Bush has expressed a firm opinion on the Texas sodomy law that the court ruled unconstitutional. He supported it. Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, dug up an article from the Austin American-Statesman of Jan. 22, 1994, titled "Bush promises to veto attempts to remove sodomy law." The newspaper reported:

"Gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush on Friday promised he would veto any attempt by the Texas Legislature to remove from the state penal code a controversial statute outlawing homosexual sodomy. Bush, a Republican, was asked about the sodomy statute shortly after speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary.

" 'I think it's a symbolic gesture of traditional values,' he said."

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

One of the more basic problems with the anti-sodomy laws that were overturned in Lawrence v. Texas was that they would land people on "sex offender" registries in a number of states (not just Texas) and such individuals would be forced to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops just to live in a community and stay out of jail. If by "past bigotry" you mean, you know, 2003, well yeah, maybe. Also, keep in mind that many states (not Texas at this point) are simply ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling and enforcing their anti-sodomy laws.

"Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions." - J. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

_________________________________________

andy,

Take a gander at the Texas Republican party's platform.

[TWC]

There is much bigotry: case in point is my fruitcake sister that thinks adultery should be illegal and, well, you can guess how she feels about gays.

BUT, these people are in the minority, particularly when compared to other eras and other generations. To say otherwise is to deny historical reality.

[Curtis]

New laws piled on top of old laws and then a gigantic database to boot with bureaucratic editing functions mainly disabled and then fear and loathing among the sanctimonious -- what a story. It's bad reading for those who are featured, though.

[joe]

Dan, the reason the Supreme Court had to strike down Texas' sodomy laws is the commitment of the people of Texas, and the political leaders they elected, to maintain, prosecute, and defend that law to the highest court in the country.

In the most liberal states in the country, there is a bare majority, maybe, that are not prejudiced against homosexuals.

[thoreau]

Can we just agree that things are a lot better than in the past but still not nearly good enough?

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Where's the sport in that? 🙂

[raymond]

Can we just agree that things are a lot better than in the past but still not nearly good enough?

See--> Comment by: thoreau at December 11, 2004 12:57 PM

[raymond]

oops

Comment by: thoreau at December 11, 2004 12:57 PM

[dead_elvis]

""More and more this is a database society," Wizner observes, "but a database is only as good as the information that?s put into it. And once you?re in one, it?s very hard to get out of it." If the government?s reliance on databases ? from the sex-offender registry to the No-Fly List to California?s ever-growing gang-member database ? continues to expand, Wizner warns, "Many people are going to experience some version of what [John Doe] is going through.""

The movie "Brazil" doesn't get nearly as much attention and reference as Orwell's 1984, but for the above reason I think it's probably a more accurate prediction of the direction we're headed, and should be required watching just as Orwell is required reading in school. Comparisons of modern life to 1984 I find usually to be a bit on the hyperbolized side, while Buttle/Tuttle/Ducting beaurocratic problems seem all too real, are likely to get worse, and can be just as oppressive.

[andy]

Don't not take it the unwrong way,

Sorry, that was a little confusing, but I figured you'd got the gist of my argument before hand.

What I MEANT was that there's a large segment of this country that's anti-individual rights, and no Supreme court decision can change that. The Supremes may (and usually do) correct injustices, but the attitudes that the injustices were based on may remain.

[andy]

Anyway, Raymond and Gary Gunnels hit it right on the nose. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MOTHERFUCKING STATES IS FOR ANTI-SODOMY LAWS! Scary.

[kevrob]

This is a little off-topic, but could the board mods put shields up against the latest porno-spammer? I only hope I get this posted before he floods this comment thread with his junk.

Kevin

[Bill]

While fornication should never be illegal, why shouldn't adultery be illegal? A marriage contract is a contract is a contract is a contract...

Why can't people understand this? I'm not saying it should be a criminal matter, but I see no libertarian reason for denying people the right to sign a marriage contract that has penalties for adultery. I signed my marriage contract. If I cheat on my wife, I've violated that contract and she should be able to sue the hell out of me based upon my infidelity (and vice versa).

[raymond]

The party of the first part shall reserve, for the exclusive use of the party of the second part, his part. Should the party of the first part's part cease to function properly, the party of the second part...

I'm having trouble formulating the contract. Does the party of the second part have property rights? Does the party of the first part provide a "service"? Is there a warranty? A provision for recall?

Would the suit be for pain and suffering? Damages? Would monetary awards in such a case be on a per-use basis? Would the party of the first part's part be kept in an evidence bag until disposition of the case? Would the party of the first part be required to hand over his part to the party of the second part if he loses the case?

Just curious.

[Ironchef]

Is anyone else outraged at the entire concept of a "Sexual Offender" registry? Don't get me wrong - those who committed the (real) crimes deserve to have their records made public, but no more so than every other criminal - robbers, murderers, etc. . . I would like to know if convicted murderers lived in my neighborhood as well. (which I'm sure I can find out, just not as conveniently as sexual offenders)

The "registry" requires those convicted and released of registering their current address with the government. That is blatantly unconstitutional. Double punishment for 1 crime.

Now I know these registeries were created because some kid was killed (or molested?) by a recently released offender, but that seems a problem with the Correctional system for releasing them in the first place. (Of course someone pleaded "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!")

It's simple: If he/she is a threat to society, keep them locked up. If they are not, and have served their time, let them out.