Hi Folks: I talked with Rep. Walker on the phone today. She has not committed to carrying a sodomy repeal or RASSL bill this session. She wants to investigate the issue further. However, she did state on principle she thinks this law is archaic. I've also encouraged Neva to join the Minneapolis Issues forum. Anyway, I'm curious whether Stonewall Democrats is working on sodomy repeal? Does anyone know? Outfront, a couple years back wasn't going to do anything about sodomy repeal. The reason: the Republicans had won the house. I'm not sure what that had to do it. I also told Rep. Walker during our conversation that I was concerned that the Lone Star State (Texas) might pass a sodomy repeal bill before Minnesota would. Personally I think that would be a major embarrassment for the North Star State. Anyway, it was nice to talk with Rep. Walker. She seemed knowledgable and smart. That will be helpful for our district. I didn't ask her about Wizard Marks' two concerns about taking on a sodomy repeal bill: 1. She shouldn't do this because she is a first time legislator and 2. She shouldn't take this on because she is African American. Neither of those reasons really make much sense to me. We did discuss Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council and his opposition to Sodomy Repeal. I told Rep. Walker about Prichard's statements that he thought there ought to be an oral sex exemption for married couples in the law. It is a sad state of affairs at the legislature when an idiot like Prichard is taken seriously. If you want to see more about the Minnesota Family Council and their feelings about Gays, check out: http://www.mfc.org/ Click on Issue Resources, then click on homosexuality. This piece is full of rather bizzarre material. The thing I remember--because it was so odd, was the item about how Gay men like nothing more than to eat feces. I'm not sure where they got that one. Anyway, I think some legislators actually do believe this type of stuff. Recently Sodomy Repeal was introduced in Arizona. It sounds like the committee hearing on the subject was quite entertaining. One of the more interesting arguments in favor of the sodomy law was the oil change argument: >The Reverend Andrew Constentino, executive director of the Interfaith > Council for Sound Government, was first to testify. Constentino compared > people and the act of procreation to taking one's car to a mechanic and > that repealing the archaic laws would be a "dangerously destructive, lube > and oil change for the nation," whereas "People should follow the > manufacturers manual, the Bible." State Representative Bill Brotherton > (D-Phoenix) asked Constentino whether scripture allows married heterosexual > couples to commit sodomy. Constentino said that "wasn't the main issue and > that God presents the answer in scripture." At the Senate Crime Prevention meeting a couple years ago, Prichard of the MFC testified that the sodomy law was needed as a public health measure to: 1. reduce AIDS and STD transmission 2. reduce teenage pregnancies I thought his testimony about sodomy laws being a good way to reduce teenage pregnancies was rather odd--since I wasn't aware that the behavior prohibited under this law causes preganancy. More about Prichard's theories on why sodomy laws and are necessary and rebuttal to this "public health" argument are available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sodomlist/message/169 Are their stupider things done by governmental agencies in the state than having this law on the books? Sure there are. The most recent example was Karen Forbes description of the method for shoveling snow used by the MCDA. That's one of the sillier things I've heard. It makes me think of the type of things the characters on Green Acres would do. Eva Eva Young Minneapolis, MN _______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
