Connect with us

Anti-Sodomy Laws Stay On The Books, Thanks To Bobby Jindal’s Hand-Picked Speaker Of The House

Published

on

Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter (left) and Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives Chuck Kleckley

I’m certain that most of the people in the state of Louisiana are nice folks. I’m certain of that. But like every state, Louisiana has its share of obstinate, self-serving politicians. Really, there is no other term that describes perfectly a man who — ten years after the U.S. Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional — refuses to repeal his state’s anti-sodomy laws from the books.

Currently there are 17 states that still “ban” sodomy. Ban is in quotes because those bans are literally illegal. And yet they remain, and they enable unscrupulous law enforcement officials to illegally and unconstitutionally arrest decent law-abiding citizens for the “crime” of having sex — even with their legally-married spouse.

Recently, the East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Sheriff’s department was caught by a local reporter arresting gay men for the “crime” of flirting, hooking up, or dating. At least 12 men were the victims of an unconstitutional sting operation during which cops would pretend to be gay, ask men out, then arrest them. One story even included this horrifying scenario:

An undercover East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff’s deputy was staking out Manchac Park about 10 a.m. one day this month when a slow-moving sedan pulling into the parking lot caught his attention. The deputy parked alongside the 65-year-old driver and, after denying being a cop, began a casual conversation that was electronically monitored by a backup team nearby.

As the two men moved their chat to a picnic table, the deputy propositioned his target with “some drinks and some fun” back at his place, later inquiring whether the man had any condoms, according to court records. After following the deputy to a nearby apartment, the man was handcuffed and booked into Parish Prison on a single count of attempted crime against nature.

So let’s talk about Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter for just a moment. We all know that the Republican Senator from the great state of Louisiana was caught in 2007 with his pants down, figuratively, at least, paying to have sex with prostitutes instead of his wife Wendy, thanks to the infamous D.C. Madam scandal. And soon, it was revealed that Vitter’s extra-marital activities extended not just to the nation’s capitol, but to the happy fun time city of New Orleans. Senator Vitter refused to resign because, as he put it, “I believe I received forgiveness from God. I know I did from Wendy, and we put it behind us.”  There are nasty rumors about his supposed diaper fetish as well. But, like the Pope said, who am I to judge?

But the only reason Senator David Vitter wasn’t arrested? The statute of limitations was up.

Yes, that’s right. Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter didn’t get arrested for hiring prostitutes  because the law said he couldn’t be. But at least a dozen men in his home state were arrested — in grave violation of their constitutional rights — despite the very fact that the law said they couldn’t be. Well, to be accurate, the Supreme Court said they couldn’t be, but not the law in Louisiana.

So let’s talk about Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, the man who in 2012 actually said that allowing same-sex marriage in his state was a slippery slope to overturning “Second Amendment rights.” The man who, yes, partakes in exorcisms.

In 2012, Governor Jindal hand-picked state Rep. Chuck Kleckley to be the Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

“Chuck is a true conservative who will be a Speaker for all of Louisiana,” Governor Jindal said, and posted this glowing endorsement to his Office of the Governor of Louisiana website:

“He’s proven that he can work across geographical and partisan lines to do the right thing for Louisiana.

“Chuck has been a strong partner and a consistent supporter of efforts to cut taxes, reduce the size of government and help grow Louisiana’s economy. We’ve spoken to members of the House and Chuck’s support exceeds a majority of the House.

“I look forward to working with Chuck as we continue to make Louisiana the best place in the world to raise a family and start a career.”

“Chuck is a true conservative who will be a Speaker for all of Louisiana.”

“Do the right thing for Louisiana.”

Apparently, doing the “right thing” for “all of Louisiana” doesn’t include repealing unconstitutional laws.

Speaker of the House Chuck Kleckley “was asked Monday at the Press Club of Baton Rouge whether he would lead an effort to repeal the law,” the AP reports. “He said no.”

To be clear, anti-sodomy laws apply to everyone. So, by definition, married heterosexual couples engaging in oral sex are in clear violation of Louisiana’s invalid and unenforceable crime against nature statute — R.S. 14:89.

Sodomy | Define Sodomy at Dictionary.com

Last month, after the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s department was caught arresting gay men illegally, they were quick to offer an apology. Their ludicrous excuse?

“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” the Sheriff’s spokesperson initially said. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”

The sheriff has been asking the state legislature since last month’s revelation of illegal arrests, to repeal the law.

Speaker Kleckley says “no.”

When Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had clearly gone overboard with insisting — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — that his state’s anti-sodomy laws be upheld, MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell insisted Cuccinelli, now the GOP gubernatorial candidate, be asked if he’s ever violated the law, even with his wife.

Well, Speaker Kleckley?

Have you?

Image by Chuck Kleckley via Facebook

 

Related:

David Vitter Wants The FBI To Do Background Checks On Teachers To Save Children From People Like David Vitter

Sheriff Arrests 12 Gay Men For Sex Because Unconstitutional Anti-Sodomy Law Still ‘On The Books’

Louisiana Republican Announces Legislation To Ban Flying The Rainbow Flag

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

7 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.