March 19, 2004

Homophobia Watch

by Nick Morgan

From Rhea county, Tennessee:

    The measure, which the commission had passed unanimously Tuesday night, would have banned gays and lesbians from living in Rhea County. The proposal would have allowed the county to prosecute gays and lesbians for "crimes against nature."

The measure was unanimously rescinded two days later. This would make a great bar review hypothetical: how many federal constitutional violations can you spot?

March 19, 2004 04:47 PM | TrackBack

The fact that it is the same county as the Scopes trial of course makes this doubly intriguing. Moreover, the articles circulating on the ordinance's passage also noted one county commissioner's view that gays "should not be allowed to live here." I think the constitutional issues involved in an ordinance along the lines of what is suggested by that remark are even more interesting. Gays and lesbians banned from the habitating in the county. EP, P-and-I, Liberty Clause, amazing days we live in.

Posted by: Simpliciter at March 19, 2004 09:24 PM

I'm a little confused about just what the measure was -- did it actually prohibit people of same-sex orientation from living in the county, or did it just say that if they lived in the county and had sex, they would be prosecuted for it? If the latter, did it single out gays and lesbians for sodomy prosecution? Technically, these are worthwhile distinctions to make.

Posted by: PG at March 20, 2004 11:33 AM

From the article, I couldn't tell exactly what it said. But it looked like they wanted to exile homosexuals, period. Though you'd have to have some way of proving homosexuality, so sodomy might figure in that way.

Posted by: Nick Morgan at March 20, 2004 12:05 PM

It made it a civil infraction (fine) for people to engage in the "abominable crime against nature" after the oldest statutory language. The "gays shouldn't be allowed to live here" language was a suggested next-step ordinance by a commissioner. I am guessing the ordinance passed banning gay sex as a sort of political statement. For even Rhea County must have an attorney that advises the corporation on clearly established Federal constitutional law. Therefore, they pass the ordinance, which raises feathers and gets in the news. Then they say, "Ut oh, we didn't know we couldn't do that," two days later after "advice of counsel to the effect that this is unconstitutional." I saw it as a political response to the extralegal county/municipality marriage license granting to same-sex couples. But who knows? I just know Bush has Tennessee locked up.

Posted by: Simpliciter at March 22, 2004 02:22 AM

Oh, I thought the "abominable crime against nature" included sodomy by heterosexuals as well. Is that merely a misdemeanor against nature?

Posted by: PG at March 22, 2004 10:51 AM

Mother Nature's more selective here in Tennessee. ;-)

Posted by: Simpliciter at March 22, 2004 06:10 PM
Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter

Powered by
Movable Type 3.21