The Supreme Court, A Crime Against Nature
You might’ve heard that the Louisiana Legislature failed, in it’s Mozilla-like quest to eradicate that scourge of law from our books: the Sodomy Law. Proponents of the law’s repeal including ignorant, newspaper reporters, ballyhooed that the law is “unconstitutional!” An enquiring mind might ask, so, what does the term “unconstitutional” mean anymore? According to the Sultans of Sodomy seated on the U.S. Supreme Court, almost anything, any state has done or can do, can be ruled “unconstitutional, like the “Sodomy Law” which is properly known as a “Crime Against Nature”. Now back in 2003, the Supremes ruled that law was “unconstitutional”, citing, you guessed it, the miraculous 14th Amendment.
We can shoot that ignorance down with a brief history lesson. In 1805, the then-territory of Orleans passed “Act number 50” which contained the following law. “Whoever shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable ‘crime against nature’, committed with mankind or beast, shall suffer imprisonment at hard labor for life.” When this state petitioned for entry into the American Union in 1812 there was no demand that said “ok, we’ll let you homophobic, WhoDat yayhoos in, but you gotta loses the “sodomy act”, it’s “unconstitutional.” The legislature revised the statute in 1855, 1870 and finally in 1896 AFTER the 14th Amendment had been in effect for 30 years, but there was no cry of “unconstitutional!” Matter of fact, I was able to find the law used successfully all the way into the 1970’s which brings up a good question: if some law was “constitutional” in the 1970’s and the Constitution hasn’t been changed since then, how can the same law be “unconstitutional” now?
I’ll answer that: The Sodomy Law is “constitutional” so long as the good people of this state say it is, barring a “Crime against nature” amendment; and I’d love to see the man, liberals and beasts, begging for that one.