Here is an excerpt from the News & Observer:
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.
They also charged Flynn with simple assault for biting Sloan. And they charged him with communicating threats by telling Sloan he was going to disembowel him and show him his innards.
“This looks like a case of a consensual act that may have gotten out of hand,” said Raleigh police Capt. T.D. Hardy. “The law is still on the books. Our detectives got involved in it last night and decided this was the best thing to do. What the D.A.’s office will do with it, I don’t know.”
Sloan, however, said he was the victim of an assault.
“I didn’t allow anything,” he said Saturday after being reached at home by phone. “They knew it and turned it around and arrested me. I have never been so humiliated in all my life. It’s just awful.”
And not only has a state lawmaker jumped to defend the alleged rapist, so has (wait for it) a progressive group blog known as Blue NC [archive link]:
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.
Notice the statute is not an ani-sodomy statute, but a statute against sexually explicit conduct…of any kind. Sodomy is included, but only as part of a list of acts. These nutroots types always try to blow everything out of proportion, and attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, and everything into a Civil Rights Violation.
Note the dismissal of the charge that an assault had taken place. Of course, the person who is charged with an assault is that of a person who has “protected minority status” and can do no wrong. Or, if they do, it is brushed away with an excuse, or ignored.
The Blue NC blogger tries to assert that N.C. G.S. 18B-1005.1 is an anti-sodomy law. Here is the law below for you to see the BS in the Blue NC blogger:
§ 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.)
The “astute” blogger fails to even mention the law is in the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Chapter, 18B, let alone that hetero-acts are also listed in the law. Once a homosexual act is mentioned…all else must be ignored.
I’m guessing that the pro-gay blogger at Blue NC has never spent any time around law enforcement. Often, people will be arrested on charges just to get the person in custody, then…later, the original charge is often dropped, or allowed to be pled away in favor of a lesser charge if the D.A. hasn’t decided on a more specific charge to be added.
Would “niceweb” prefer that reported crimes by homosexuals be ignored…especially if they were gay sex crimes?
I suppose if the circumstances were that this law had been used to arrest a man that had been accused of the same crime against a woman, the blogger would have still blogged about it? No way, because it does not advance the agenda, nor does it match the template.
Of course, niceweb has only three posts up, and two of them are about gay issues. Connect the dots. This is much adoo about nothing.