General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, the Michigan Senate did NOT just pass a bill outlawing oral and anal sex.
From Michigan Senator David Knezek's Facebook:
Senate Bills 219 and 220, the bills in question, were sponsored by Senator Rick Jones (R) and Senator Steve Bieda (D). SB 219 and 220 would establish Logan's Law here in Michigan, which prevents convicted animal abusers from adopting pets. It is a popular issue that has gained significant bipartisan support.
So why are some news articles reporting that the Senate just voted to ban oral and anal sex when we really voted to prevent animal abusers from adopting animals? A few background notes and a brief explanation of the legislative process should help.
Michigan has had a ban - an unconstitutional ban, I might add - on oral and anal sex since 2003. This is not a new law. It can be found in Section 158, Subsection 1 of Michigan Compiled Law 750.158.
When amendments to any law are made, when additional subsections to the law are added, so on and so forth, a bill is introduced that includes all current language in that particular section as a whole, plus the new and amended language you wish to add.
Section 158, the section of law that needed to be amended in order to prevent convicted animal abusers from adopting animals, is also the same section of law that included the 2003 ban on oral and anal sex. Same section of the law, two different subsections.
The way the information is currently being presented to the public, it would suggest that a bill stating, "Ban all oral and anal sex!", was placed before the Senate and then all 38 of us stood up and said, "Hey that sounds like a good idea! Okay!".
That, as you now know, is inaccurate.
A bill stating, "Prevent animal abusers from adopting animals", was placed before the Senate and all of us voted "yes". It was indeed a unanimous vote - a vote to prevent animal abusers from adopting animals - on a bill, as you now know, whose section of law also included the subsection which includes the unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex.
To be fair, I would welcome criticism stating that we, the Senate, missed an opportunity to take this unconstitutional ban off the books or at least message on the issue and the need for its removal. It would be fair to say the Senate, by way of not removing the ban, reaffirmed its existence in state law and that's not good either. It would be inaccurate to suggest that we passed a bill to ban those activities that were already, and unconstitutionally, banned in Michigan back in 2003.
It would have been easy to insert language that prevents animal abusers from adopting animals while simultaneously striking the language that banned oral and anal sex. However - to be forthright with you and this is where the partisanship comes in - that would have killed Logan's Law, leaving us with an unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex still on the books plus zero laws preventing animal abusers from adopting animals. We now have one of the two, neither of which being any less important than the other, and, with the attention this issue now has, we can try to remove the unconstitutional ban in the House or through separate legislation that I would support and co-sponsor.
In conclusion, this issue has, again, highlighted for me two of the greatest frustrations of this job - the ability of an inaccurate headline to mislead the public and the power a one-sentence headline that's easily shareable has versus a long-winded explanation like this that likely few will read. Sound bytes always beat the long-winded explanations but they are rarely, if at all, accurate.
Sometimes it's a stretching of the truth, sometimes it's a downright lie, but it almost always leads to a distrust of elected officials and frustrations with the political process. The public rightly responded with outrage thinking that we were wasting time and taxpayer dollars on such a silly bill. This is what you were led to believe. I don't blame you.
My commitment has been and will always be as such - I am an ally and a strong supporter of the LGBTQ community; I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own homes; and when presented with the opportunity to educate and inform, I will always welcome your criticism with the opportunity to share an "inside baseball" perspective of the legislative process and how it works (or doesn't). That is my commitment to you and I hope you might meet me halfway in spreading the truth. We will all be better for it.
https://www.facebook.com/davidmknezek/posts/1668209583438258
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Yes, the Michigan Senate did indeed reaffirm its unanimous commitment to an unconstitutional law. The fix is easy, so easy that Knezek himself explained quite succinctly how simple it would have been for the Senate to excise this unconstitutional language. But they didn't do it, and instead unanimously reaffirmed that language.
Sorry Sen. Knezek, you and your fellow Senators are not off the hook.
Gman
(24,780 posts)And risk getting the larger issue of animal abusers tabled? The fight over existing language has already been won.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Sen. Knezek wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want to do the heavy lifting required to excise the unconstitutional language by persuading his colleagues to do it, and he doesn't want to get blamed for leaving it in. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to say that he's keeping his powder dry for a real fight, or he doesn't want to expend the energy or political capital, or he's too circumspect to do the work on behalf of the state's citizens, then say that. But his self-serving nonsense isn't going to cut it as a profile in political courage.
I dunno. Ask the other side.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I'm not interested in assuaging the tender feelings of bigots. As it is, the language stays in the statute, and sits there ready to cause mischief at the whim of some overzealous county district attorney or state attorney general. Michigan is inviting its own version of Kim Davis to manifest and cause a lot of unnecessary misery for its citizens while the matter grinds its way through the courts.
Sen. Knezek has the power to fix this, but he turtled.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Fact is they would floor fight because it keeps their base angry and ready to go vote.
Ultimately you have to ask if the fight is worth it. That part of the law is unenforceable. So it makes no sense to risk losing the desired change over something that dies not matter because it means nothing anymore
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)decades with vehemence and without quarter. So you are completely incorrect that it is not enforceable. Seems to me you are longing to keep that law in place.
Gman
(24,780 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Oh noes! A floor fight over civil rights for all citizens and getting a superannuated statute off the books. Sen. Knezek is obviously being very sensible and keeping his powder dry for something that matters, and he'd like his constituents to know that despite his inaction he really is fighting for them in the legislature.
The other side isn't the only side that can stage a floor fight, and Democrats' refusal to stand with their base is part of the reason Republicans keep winning elections. Look at the statements by Republican voters, as they get angry and ready to vote because some demagogue is promising to build a yuuuge wall or outlaw abortion or deport every Muslim. It's a meaningless promise to do the impossible, but it hits a lot of voters where they live. So many that they'll overlook their aging schools and crumbling roads and bridges and keep voting Republican.
Democratic voters can use a little firing up, too. Here was a good chance for Sen. Knezek to show his constituents that he cares about all of them. Instead, because there might be a floor fight (Republicans don't even have to threaten anymore, Democrats are self-threatening), Knezek won't take the simple step to clean up the unconstitutional language in a statute. As I said before, wait until Michigan's version of Kim Davis decides to bring charges on that unconstitutional language. Someone has his or her life turned upside down for weeks, months, or even years as a zealous prosecutor pursues charges that everyone knows aren't going anywhere. But Knezek didn't start a floor fight, so Democrats have that going for them, and voters should be enthusiastic to return such a sensible man to office at the next election.
Volaris
(10,278 posts)and the only reason there would be one, is because the Republicans in the state legislature are in the mood to be dicks about it.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)and by doing it, they did it. If they didn't do it then they wouldn't have done it, but they did it.
Gman
(24,780 posts)People call themselves a journalist but are largely uneducated on the issues they cover. But they're a "journalist", dammit.
Orrex
(63,260 posts)"No, the Michigan Senate did NOT just pass a bill outlawing oral and anal sex, except that the Michigan Senate totally did just pass a law outlawing oral and anal sex."
Got it.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)The law is already on the books. It is unconstitutional and unenforceable. It is irrelevant. And the Senate didn't just pass it. Period. It didn't happened. Not removing a law from the books isn't anywhere close to passing a law. Journalists are just looking for an outrage story to make some money and ignorant people are looking for something to be outraged about.
Orrex
(63,260 posts)If only..
Kaleva
(36,382 posts)
fullautohotdog
(90 posts)As in they have to put a whole section of law into a new bill to amend a part of it?
Weird.
That said, I can see how it makes it a lot easier to understand how the changes relate to existing law compared to other states that say "Subsection 12.345.XYZPDQ is amended to remove the word 'horse-f******' from paragraph 69 sentence 3 clause 4."
Heaven help us if the answer isn't always short... It's like people excited that NY was ditching conversion therapy this weekend when all Cuomo did was make it so insurance wouldn't cover the "therapy" for minors anymore and 25 specific state-overseen mental facilities won't perform it. Insurance for adults? Still OK. The practice on minors? Still OK, you just have to pay out of pocket. And you can't go to one of the 25 specific centers (which don't include your average hospital with a psych ward or any private shrink).
I can see the choice he faced: Fight over a law that doesn't legally matter and would get vetoed, or stop Joey the dog-fighter from adopting more pit bulls from the ASPCA (or at least arrest Joey and get him to snitch on the rest of his dog-fighting buddies in exchange for light prosecution).
---NOW, if he doesn't introduce a bill to get the sodomy crap (no pun intended) off the books, I'd be pissed if he were my senator. The symbology (stupid law doesn't deserve the correct word for it) of the law is just too great to not do anything on it. ---
JanMichael
(24,898 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)to NOT listen to reason.
My question is, what defines a "convicted animal abuser"?
lame54
(35,343 posts)Because they didn't vote on the homophobic language - that was done waaaaaayyy back in 2003
Call them bigots because they would rather put animals at risks instead of removing the homophobic language that they claim can't be enforced anyway
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Not 1916.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I assume he's all in for Hillary, he's DOMA branch excuse manufacture division. Such politicians need to be sent home, mealy mouthed craven piece of fear in a suit.
