Why some states still call gays criminals

[William769]

Laws do more than establish legal rules. Consider:

The Kansas House Judiciary Committee is debating a bill intended to clean up the state’s criminal code. An amendment to that bill would have done away with the law that bans consensual homosexual sex. But two Kansas Republicans –Jan Pauls and Lance Kinzer – removed that amendment from the law. The ban is unenforceable in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, so why did they do it?

According to Kinzer: “It’s a tempest in a teapot. I don’t think it would make any difference. The statute is unenforceable.”

This leaves a question begging to be asked: If the statute has passed its sell-by date, why leave it on the books? After all, the whole project of the underlying bill is to do away with laws that are unclear, unenforceable, outmoded, and so on. Why single this one out as not worth the trouble of removing?

There can be only two reasons. The first is that the Supreme Court could, in theory, reverse itself and reestablish the right of states to enact laws criminalizing intimate sexual conduct between members of the same sex. This is never going to happen, though.

This brings me to the real reason: By keeping this law on the books, the lawmakers (and, by extension, the state) send the message that, as far as they’re concerned, those who engage in such conduct are still criminals, even if they can’t be punished. And for many, to call homosexuals criminals is an important vindication of their view that we are sinners.

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-why-some-states-still-call-gays-criminals/

[Deep13]

1. Doesn't Christian dogma state that everyone is a sinner?

Why single out gays? (This assumes that religious dogma is a legitimate basis for law, which it is not.)

[msongs]

2. their fear based philosphy is not applied equally, gays are a preferred target. Your husband or wife

may be an adulterous POS but that is pretty much ok these days as long as they are not having an affair with a same sex partner. Gee, what does the bible say about adulterers and stones?

[ZombieHorde]

3. If being gay is a crime, then crime is not bad.

Calling a situation a crime does not define the situation, it defines the word "crime."

[MuseRider]

4. Jan Pauls is a DEMOCRAT

I posted about this, it did not get much interest but Jan Pauls, after we had the language approved in committee to remove that part of it put it back in by her little old DEMOCRATIC self. We called for her to be censured by the heads of the party, nary a word. She is meeting stiff opposition by our chapter in her district. She continues to hold her position. I do not think she will have an easy time being re-elected.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Homophobia has certainly never been the exclusive cause of just one party

Our side just hides it better sometimes when they want our checks and votes.

[MuseRider]

9. True

but I wanted that corrected because it is important that it be known. We are alone out here fighting. We have some R's and some D's who will stand with us but the Democratic party as a whole does not. I wrote to the author and I see that the Chair and lobbyist for the Kansas Equality Coalition did as well and I think he corrected it or at least he did respond to us.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. This is bipartisan activity...

Pauls is a Democrat. A 'New Dem' a 'moderate centrist'.

[MuseRider]

6. On social issues

she might as well be a crazy RWer.

[Scottybeamer70]

7. Any of them

will do all they can to make themselves feel superior to gays.....It
doesn't seem to make a difference about the D or R before their names.
If they can call gays "sinners" (whatever that is), then it makes them
feel so much better and superior.
Too bad we can't clean out their closets.

[Meeker Morgan]

10. Reason number two is just an interim tactic.

Re-criminalization is goal. Fundies are frequently honest about that.