This is interesting. I wrote a few weeks ago about Lonnie Latham, the anti-gay minister who was arrested at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer. In an interesting twist, the ACLU has filed an amicus brief in his case arguing that the ruling in Lawrence v Texas, which struck down state anti-sodomy laws, makes the law under which Latham was arrested unconstitutional as well:
"The Supreme Court [via the Lawrence v. Texas decision] had made it crystal clear that when it comes to their sex lives, consenting adults are free to do whatever they please in private," said Joann Bell, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. "It is not a crime merely to invite someone to have completely lawful sex. If it were otherwise, every bar in the state may as well shut its doors."
And I think they're right. The police report says that Latham invited the undercover officer back to his hotel room for oral sex, but did not offer any money. That means it doesn't fall under prostitution laws and is simply one person trying to pick up another person for sex. Nothing illegal about that.
- Log in to post comments
So it will be framed as the ACLU is pro gay rights and they will be bashed accordingly.
The ACLU is pro gay rights.
Let me ask a question. Could someone challenge prostitution laws using Lawrence v. Texas?
BillySixString wrote:
Quite possibly. I doubt it would win, but I think it probably should.
Yes, I know. I think I phrased that badly. What I was trying to say was that the "southern baptist preacher" part will be ignored and critics will focus on "gay" part and overlook the part where no laws were actually broken.
Quite possibly. I doubt it would win, but I think it probably should.
Why? What are those laws?
Roman wrote:
Laws against prostitution, which is someone selling sex.