Sodomy Charges Dropped

Cross-posted at BlueNC.com

Dear Friends:

First and foremost, a tip of the hat to NChands, who posted on this story earlier tonight on the DailyKos, and who has graciously allowed me to recount the report here at BlueNC.
This is written in follow-up to an earlier post, describing the recent arrests of two Raleigh men on charges of crimes against nature.

The Raleigh News and Observer Reports:

Wake County prosecutors dropped charges Friday against a pair of Raleigh men arrested last weekend for private acts of sodomy, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that make such charges unconstitutional.
Nelson Keith Sloan, 39, and Ryan Christopher Flynn, 25, were charged with crimes against nature after police said Sloan called officers to his apartment early Saturday morning saying he had been attacked.

No sexual assault charges were filed. Police charged Flynn with simple assault for biting Sloan.

After reviewing the case, Assistant District Attorney Adam Moyers said the facts showed all acts occurred between consenting adults in private. He cited the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas that forbids making private sexual conduct a crime.

There was some initial concern that Mr. Sloan had been sexually assaulted, based on his statement in the initial News and Observer Report. However, Flynn has been charged with simple assault, stemming from Mr. Flynn allegedly biting Mr. Sloan.

Although the charges have been dropped, North Carolina's anti-sodomy laws remain on the books, with seemingly little but to harass. Perhaps Mr. Sloan, one of the charged, put it best when he said:

"I am grateful that the DA's office has a better understanding of the Constitution than the Raleigh Police Department," Sloan said in a statement Friday. "However, as long as this law remains on the books it is a crime punishable by an arrest, a stay in jail, media attention, and a fine of $450 since that is how much it cost me to get out of jail."

Although attempts have been made to modernize North Carolina's Crimes against Nature (CAN) statutes, little has changed, which is most likely the result of the Christian Right in the state. However, as exemplified in this case, attempting to enforce these unconstitutional laws results in an embarrassment for the community, not taking into account what is surely a difficult time for those charged.

Although we can hope for change, without action this sorry episode is bound to repeat itself. I'm attaching links to the members of the North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina Senate, complete with listings of both houses with email addresses.

What About Easley?

I was on CNN.com, looking at an article about potential ticket-mates for Barack Obama, and guess who I saw.



The article lists Easley's positives as

-He may help carry North Carolina.

-He has a good feel for blue collar America.

His negatives involve the potential for him being seen as a political insider, coupled with his inexperience in foreign policy matters.

It's probably a long shot to think that Easley will end up on the ticket, but we can be proud that, along with Edwards, two North Carolina Democrats are in the running for the vice-presidential nomination.

Cross-posted at BlueNC.com

Vernon Robinson Wins Award

Thank you to BrianR with BlueNC.com for a recent post regarding Growth and Justice's awarding of the worst political ad of the year.

The award goes to Vernon Robinson, who will probably be up for a lifetime achievement award pretty soon. Here's the award winning ad.



Hopefully, this will be the last time Vernon wins anything ever again.

Two Charged With Sodomy In Raleigh

There's a shocking story coming to us from the Raleigh News & Observer tonight regarding two men recently arrested for committing homosexual acts.

Raleigh police are charging two adults for sodomy in private, although the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have outlawed such charges five years ago.Police on Saturday charged two West Raleigh men with a "crime against nature" for having sex early that morning. Each faces up to two years in prison if convicted of the Class I felony.
But that charge is unconstitutional, a state lawmaker says.
And the circumstances of the encounter are murky.
Raleigh police first charged Nelson Keith Sloan, 40, of Grand Manor Court, who called them to his apartment about dawn, saying he had been attacked.
Police later filed the same charge against Ryan Christopher Flynn, 25, of Glen Currin Drive.

The article further discusses the constitutionality of the matter:

North Carolina's "crime against nature" law doesn't apply only to same-sex partners. But a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling appears to forbid states from treating private, consensual, adult sex as crimes.
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," the high court ruled in the case Lawrence v. Texas. "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

As many of you probably know, anti-sodomy laws have been address and declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The controlling case is that of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The court rendered a 6-3 decision in favor of Lawrence. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion:

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.
(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

In what appears on the surface to be a domestic assault issue, the police took it upon themselves to arrest both men under North Carolina's archaic anti-sodomy law. G. S. 18B-1005.1 states:

18B‑1005.1. Sexually explicit conduct on licensed premises.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a permittee or his agent or employee to knowingly allow or engage in any of the following kinds of conduct on his licensed premises:
(1) Any conduct or entertainment by any person whose genitals are exposed or who is wearing transparent clothing that reveals the genitals;
(2) Any conduct or entertainment that includes or simulates sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, or any act that includes or simulates the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of a person's body; or
(3) Any conduct or entertainment that includes the fondling of the breasts, buttocks, anus, vulva, or genitals.
(b) Supervision. – It shall be unlawful for a permittee to fail to superintend in person or through a manager the business for which a permit is issued.
(c) Exception. – This section does not apply to persons operating theaters, concert halls, art centers, museums, or similar establishments that are primarily devoted to the arts or theatrical performances, when the performances that are presented are expressing matters of serious literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. (2003‑382, s. 2.)

G. S. 14-177 states:

If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

Also, in an unrelated manner, which only proves further the archaic nature of our sex laws, I found this as well:

G. S. 14‑186. Opposite sexes occupying same bedroom at hotel for immoral purposes; falsely registering as husband and wife.
Any man and woman found occupying the same bedroom in any hotel, public inn or boardinghouse for any immoral purpose, or any man and woman falsely registering as, or otherwise representing themselves to be, husband and wife in any hotel, public inn or boardinghouse, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

These arrest would seem to be a significant deviation from the constitutional issues decided in the Lawrence case. The arrests of these men is a disturbing deviation from what has seemed to be settle law. The fact that North Carolina's statutes still maintain anti-sodomy provisions, even after the Supreme Court's decision, is troubling enough in itself. However, it is the enforcement of the law that is an even more serious affront to Constitution.
It has been suggested that North Carolina's anti-sodomy statute has remained on the books in an effort to appease the Christian Right. I'm not sure if this is true, although I do know that many on the Christian Right take issue with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Let's hope that the charges issued in Raleigh are dropped, and no attempt is made to take this issue up again to the higher courts.