In Boston, it's illegal for married gay men to have sex with each other.

[Muzzle Tough]

I'm a total civil libertarian on the issues of gay mariage and sex between consenting adults.

What a shame that after gay men get married in Boston, they aren't legally allowed to have sex with each other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33552-2004Dec3.html?nav=rss_nation

Critics of the remaining regulations say they are not just anachronistic but also potentially harmful -- and, in some cases, unconstitutional. While several, such as the criminalization of sodomy, have been found unconstitutional in recent years, they officially remain the law of the land.

Creem's "archaic crimes" bill would repeal bans on blasphemy, adultery (which, on paper, carries a sentence of up to three years), fornication (defined as sexual intercourse out of wedlock), and some acts listed as "crimes against nature," including sodomy.

[imenja]

1. The US supreme court struck down sodomy laws

I think it was last year. The case involved a Texas gay male couple prosecuted for sodomy. The Supremes ruled that the Texas law was unconstitutional since it was directly only a gay people and as such was discriminatory. The analysis I heard at the time noted that laws that forbid a particular act, regardless of who committed it, might still be considered constitutional.

[UL_Approved]

2. The new segregation

Homosexuals are the new group to relegate to a segregated underclass. Its sad that people in this country embrace it so much.

[rfkrfk]

3. States should repeal medieval laws

States should respect the wishes of their people.
What is the problem, here?

[Muzzle Tough]

4. The problem is that the law wasn't repealed sooner.

The problem is also that the law was passed in the first place.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Muzzle Tough, you misstate what this WP article says about

married gay men (and by implication married lesbian women too).

Contrary to what you stated, married people in Massachusetts -- whether straight or gay, male or female -- may perform sodomy upon each other as a married couple. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) over-turned the nation's sodomy laws. BTW, Lawrence and his male partner were not married to each other under Texas law when they were criminally arrested for sodomy; they were single. Thus, sodomy is legal in all 50 states and territories throughout the U.S.A. u/ Lawrence.

Merely because these sodomy laws remain on the books in some states across America does not also mean that a court-of-law could (or would) convict on these laws. Why? Because, again, the U.S. Supreme Court held that they were unconstitutional.

Are you sure there's not something else going on w/ you?

As for any archaic Massachusetts laws, yes, I agree with MA Senator Cynthia Stone Creem (D, Newton) to rescind/delete archaic state laws.

However, all that aside, Massachusetts is not alone nor unique for having non-used archaic and sometimes down-right silly laws remain on its books. For example, have you heard of this website?

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184

1.) No animal may be hunted for on Sunday with the exception of raccoons, which may be hunted until 2:00 AM. (Virginia state law)

2.) Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary. (Virginia state law)

3.) Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public. (Ohio state law)

4.) It is illegal to get a fish drunk. (Ohio state law)

And the list goes on and on and on and on . . . is there something about the fact that Massachusetts does not discriminate against gays in marriage and related issues, or in employment, or in housing that you don't want to acknowledge?

edited to add:

The WP reporter is incorrect with this statement:

"While several, such as the criminalization
of sodomy, have been found unconstitutional
in recent years, they officially remain the
law of the land."

Why is that an incorrect statement of law? As I stated above, despite sodomy laws remaining on the books in some states, they were over-ruled in Lawrence as unconstitutional under our federal constitution.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



.

[Muzzle Tough]

6. Thanks for all of that.

I just thought that it was weird that a state that would legalize gay marriage would also have laws that outlawed gay sex. Seems like kind of a contradiction, that's all.

I know about the dumblaw site.

[tjwmason]

7. WeEnglish have some of the best archaic laws

I was obliged to do half an hour's archery pratice on Sunday afternoon (which I failed to do, wicked me); and London taxi drivers are requird to carry a certain quantity of oats. Both of these made sense at one point (when English defence consisted of our longbowmen, and when taxis were pulled by horses), but they are acknowledged to be archaic and not enforced.

I am not terribly bothered by out-dated laws which are ignored by all, but in the Texas case shows that now these will be applied.

One other point, if marriage has not been consumated that constitutes grounds for divorce in England; is the same true in Mass.? If so that's a pretty bizarre situation, the law both obliges and prohibits the two men from having sex.

[livinginphotographs]

8. You mean Ohio won't let me get my fish drunk!

Well I know where my fish and I will NOT be vacationing this year!

[Brian_Expat]

9. This isn't true

Those laws were thrown out by the SJC decades ago, and date from the 1600s -- predating the United States itself.