Re: Progeny of Lawrence

[guayiya]

Context is crucial.  I live in Charlotte.  This is as much a story about Charlotte cultural politics as an issue about the best interpretation of Lawrence.  Charlotte is where county funding for the arts was zeroed out after a gay-themed play was performed with some public funds.  (Decision later overturned.)  Charlotte is where the CityAttorney, who actually ruled for Lawrence in my moot court exercise, nevertheless advised the city that it lacked power to extend insurance benefits to partners of gay employees--even thouigh two courts in the State had ruled to the contrary in the only cases on point.  Translation: provoking the religious right is political suicide.  

Why will no one touch the glaringly obvious establishment clause issue about sodomy laws?  

Daniel Hoffman
Chris SCHROEDER wrote:

The following has just come to my attention.  It is the guts of a memo just issued to the police force of Charlotte, NC, regarding the implications of Lawrence v. Texas for the enforcement of North Carolina's crimes against nature statute.  The statute itself is delightfully brief:  If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

 

Here is the excerpt from the memo issued by police headquarters to the police officers in Charlotte:

 

[Lawrence] draws into question the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. §14-177, Crime Against Nature.  Clearly, the holding in Lawrence prohibits charging two consenting adults who are engaging in a crime against nature within a private residence with the above charge.  However, the case did not directly address the solicitation of a crime against nature (SOLCAN).

 

For the time being and until a court tells us otherwise, we are of the following opinion: 1.) a SOLCAN charge wherein a subject offers to commit a crime against nature for money in either a private or public place is a valid charge; 2.) a SOLCAN charge wherein the subject offers to commit a crime against nature for no money in public or at an unspecified location is a valid charge; and 3.) a SOLCAN charge wherein the subject offers to commit a crime against nature for no money or consideration at a private place is no longer a valid charge.

 

We have spoken with the D.A.’s office who has agreed to continue to accept these charges; however, in the event a judge dismisses these cases based on a different interpretation, we may have to discontinue filing some or all SOLCAN charges.

 

Officers should still charge individuals with felony crime against nature if persons  are observed engaging in anal or oral sex in a public place, such as a park or a restroom.

 

*****

 

Any thoughts?