As of today ..... Sodomy is still against the law in 14 U.S. states.

Allowing two people of the same sex to get married is federal law however 14 U.S. states and the U.S. military still have laws against sodomy.

As of April 2014, 17 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adult, or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Fourteen states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah. Four states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Oklahoma, Kansas[16][17] Kentucky, and Texas.

Alabama (Alab. Code 13A-6-65.)
Florida (Fld. Stat. 798.02.) (Fld. Stat. 800.02.)
Georgia (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.)
Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605.) (I.C. § 18-6605.)
Kansas (Kan. Stat. 21-3505.)
Kentucky (KY Rev Stat § 510.100.)
Louisiana (R.S. 14:89.)
Maryland (Md. Code Ann. § 3-321.) (Md. Code Ann. § 3-322.)
Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34.) (MGL Ch. 272, § 35.)
Michigan (MCL § 750.158.) (MCL § 750.338.) (MCL § 750.338a.) (MCL § 750.338b.)
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 609.293.) (Minn. Stat. 609.34.)
Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59.)
North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177.) (G.S. § 14-184.) (G.S. § 14-186.)
Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886.)
South Carolina (S.C. Code § 16-15-60.) (S.C. Code § 16-15-120.)
Texas (Tx. Code § 21.06.)
Utah (Ut. Code 76-5-403.)

So federally speaking two people of the same sex can get married but legally not have sex in 14 U.S. states and in the U.S. military. Many states have argued that NULLIFICATION of Federal law is a tenth amendment right.

The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.

Of course the federal government is strictly against nullification and says federal law overrides states laws but we have all heard and seen numerous cases where state versus federal arguments have been for the federal government and then reversed by the Supreme court time and time again.

I can see it now .... two male or female combat veterans together in a foxhole seeing the enemy about to overthrow their position - For those who know - Remember the ole saying in a situation like this: "Bend over and kiss your own ass goodbye"?

Well now your foxhole buddy can do it for you legally.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Name just one time a state law had been upheld over a federal law by the Supreme Court.

Because I am unaware of these " over and over again " cases you are talking about.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Name just one time a state law had been upheld over a federal law by the Supreme Court.

Because I am unaware of these " over and over again " cases you are talking about.

You asked for one so here is one:

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

So they are in good company, with Uganda and hardline Islamic countries. They should be proud

a reply to: DeathSlayer

pffft - lightweights.

In Utah, it is illegal to be in a public space with a paper bag containing a violin.

I can't be bothered linking that - just google "insane laws 2015" or something like that.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Name just one time a state law had been upheld over a federal law by the Supreme Court.

Because I am unaware of these " over and over again " cases you are talking about.

You asked for one so here is one:

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

But that is not a case of a state law superceding federal law, that is a case of a state law acting in ways not covered by a federal law.

It did not supercede the Federal law at all.

In fact I have seen federal law supercede state law every time in every case, so long as the Federal law was not found to be unconstitutional.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

So when is the last time someone appeared before a judge for consensual buggary?

You can technically still be hung for stealing a horse in Scotland but it does not mean it ever happens. Laws simply become out dated and non applicable to modern day life as the politically correct opinion evolves.

It works the other way around as well. If I were to attempt to consume alcohol on the street or light a cigarette in a pub thesedays I would be fined or charged.

End of the day the way we enforce the law of the land depends on the political correct opinion of what considered to be right or wrong. And that changes over time.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: DeathSlayer

So when is the last time someone appeared before a judge for consensual buggary?

You can technically still be hung for stealing a horse in Scotland but it does not mean it ever happens. Laws simply become out dated and non applicable to modern day life as the politically correct opinion evolves.

Legally then any outdated law or laws no longer deemed as law should then be removed from the books. I know this is rarely done but the law is the law is it not?

Here in Texas you can be arrested and thrown in jail for failing to return a library book.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Yes the law is indeed the law but political opinion tends to dictate when and why it is enforced. That just life these days.

Done an edit on that last post, please excuse me , am typing from a phone.

a reply to: andy06shake

Laws simply become out dated and non applicable to modern day life as the politically correct opinion evolves.

Well yes they do, I agree completely, but ....

If they got the laws right the first time, then why do they have to keep making new ones and ....

Perhaps legislators all over the world should suspend making new laws because, hell, we really do have enough of them and perhaps start to repeal laws that are truly out of date.

The problem there is, that there would be just as many people from the far left, far right, Christian terrorists and others, wanting these outdated laws to be enforced once they knew they even existed.

It would give law makers a much needed task, to earn their pay, something that has not happened in the last hundred years or so.

It truly makes a mockery of the law when Yes, you can get married but If you have sex we will arrest you

Thank god for the fifth amendment. So will we have devout religious people looking into your bedroom windows to see if they can make a citizen's arrest.

P

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Ha in North Carolina where I live oral sex is a crime and is still used sometimes...

Cases hold that each of the following acts is a crime against nature:

the inserting, by a male, of his sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another male or a female, State v. Fenner, 166 N.C. 247 (1914); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746 (1965); State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516 (1971),

the receiving, by a male or a female, of the sexual organ of a male into his or her mouth or anus, State v. Griffin, 175 N.C. 767 (1876); State v. Chance, 3 N.C. App. 459 (1969),

fellatio, State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385 (1979),
cunnilingus, State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55 (1978),
analingus, and the inserting of an object into a person’s genital opening, State v. Stiller, 162 N.C. App. 138 (2004).

...and that my friends is how my wife and I became lawbreakers... We are scofflaws, villainous and willful wrongdoers (hopefully) several times a week.


V

originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Ha in North Carolina where I live oral sex is a crime and is still used sometimes...

Cases hold that each of the following acts is a crime against nature:

the inserting, by a male, of his sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another male or a female, State v. Fenner, 166 N.C. 247 (1914); State v. Harward, 264 N.C. 746 (1965); State v. Copeland, 11 N.C. App. 516 (1971),

the receiving, by a male or a female, of the sexual organ of a male into his or her mouth or anus, State v. Griffin, 175 N.C. 767 (1876); State v. Chance, 3 N.C. App. 459 (1969),

fellatio, State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385 (1979),
cunnilingus, State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55 (1978),
analingus, and the inserting of an object into a person’s genital opening, State v. Stiller, 162 N.C. App. 138 (2004).

...and that my friends is how my wife and I became lawbreakers... We are scofflaws, villainous and willful wrongdoers (hopefully) several times a week.


V

And if your wife is of the same sex as you, then according to North Carolina law you might also be charged with sodomy.

a reply to: pheonix358

Lucky you, we don't have the fifth amendment over here. Best we can do is say "I refuse to answer your questions on the grounds I may incriminate myself". Suppose it amounts to the same thing all the same.

As of today....Thou shalt not kill is STILL one of the Ten Commandments.

Victims of the Christian Faith

As of today....Thou shall not commit adultery is STILL one of the Ten Commandments.

Ashley Madison Christians

As of today.... The pot is STILL calling the kettle black.

I have an idea that would clean up the books from these old outdated laws.
For every new law that passes, they need to remove an old law.
This would be on the federal and state level.

I find sodomy distasteful whether we are talking about heterosexual or homosexual participants, however, it shouldn't be illegal if that's your idea of fun.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

federalist/antifederalist arguments have raged since day 1 of our nations founding. We killed an enormous amount of our own brothers and sisters fighting over federalism vs antifederalism.


I am not a federalist. I believe that governance of people should be done on as small a scale as possible. Ideal: household level governance (rights of individuals). acceptable: state level governanc. unacceptable: federal level governance.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I find sodomy distasteful whether we are talking about heterosexual or homosexual participants, however, it shouldn't be illegal if that's your idea of fun.

You find it "distasteful."

Ha! Best comment of the thread, intentional or not.