Baton Rouge Sheriff Arrests Gay Men in Sting

Claims Innocent on Invalid Anti-Sodomy Laws

City Councilmember John Delgado of Baton Rouge was infuriated when he read on July 28th in a Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper that the local sheriff, Sid Gautreaux had arrested twelve gay men in the last two years on charges that they had violated the state’s law prohibiting homosexual sex. Truth is that with the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court Case in 2003, those anti-sodomy laws were rendered invalid.and unconstitutional yet still remain on the books in Louisiana as well as other states.

Hello, Sid?

The Sheriff says he never got a memo saying that anti-sodomy laws weren’t valid anymore. Duh. Delgado said “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It seems that Sid ‘s modus operandi of his sting was having his deputy ask men in the park if they wanted to go back to his place for sex.  When the men agree and go to the home, then they are arrested.

Private Consensual Sex: No Criminal Violation

There is no money involved so they are not being arrested for prostitution. The men are being arrested on false grounds as the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the anti-sodomy laws they are using to target the gay population and incarcerate them. Local District Attorney Hillar Moore stated that all the men were released from jail after being booked on the felony charge of attempted charge against nature and that the district attorney’s office did not pursue the charges in any of the cases as there is nothing illegal about what happened.

Delgado, a lawyer, is adamant that” those officers had to have known the law is unconstitutional. I think it’s a policy of harassment that targets a specific segment of the population. ”He is filing public records to determine when the District Attorney’s Office informed the Sheriff’s office that the men had not committed crimes.

Gautreaux’s Defense

On July 28, 2013, the Sheriff’s office issued a statement saying it “has not, nor will it ever, set out with the intent to target or embarrass any part of our law-abiding community.”  It said that the arrests were an attempt to deter or stop lewd activity in a park where children are playing. “Children were not present when the gay men were arrested. On July 29th, the Sheriff nor his office were not available for comment. Hmmm.

However, D.A. Moore told the newspaper that in all twelve cases, the men agreed to have sex away from the park at a private residence.

Appeasing the Wounded

On July 29th, Gautreaux said that he had informed all employees of the Sheriff’s Office that they are not to use these constitutional (outdated) laws. The Sheriff also stated that he would begin discussion on striking the unconstitutional sections of Louisiana’s “Crimes Against Nature” law from the books.

Gautreaux told the Capital City Alliance, a local LGBT advocacy group, that deputies “will no longer be enforcing this law until the courts or the legislature removes it.”  In hindsight, Gautreaux admits that he should have taken a different approach. He insists that the arrests were never to target a certain segment of the population.  “When we receive reports of public masturbation, sex and other lewd activity in a park where children are playing, we must take these concerns seriously.  Our intent was honorable, our approach, however, is something we must evaluate and change.”

 

 

 

 

Gay Hero Duncan Hosie, A Name Gays Can Trust

Princeton University Student Challenges Supreme Ct. Justice Scalia

Duncan Hosie, a San Francisco native interested in constitutional law, wasn’t ‘buying’ Supreme Court Justice’s Antonin Scalia’s equating laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and even murder.  “Why do you think it’s necessary to liken the consenting relationships of gay adults to animal rapists and murderers?”, he asked Scalia.

A Princeton 2016 classman, Hosie, was in the University’s audience during a question-and-answer period following the promotion of Antonin Scalia’s new book, “Reading Law.”  Based on Scalia’s Supreme Court votes, speeches and writings on the subject, Hosie, who had just come out a month before, found his rhetoric offensive.

Justice Scalia Put On the Spot

The U.S. Supreme Court Justice answered Hosie by saying “ I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective because legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral. It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, (says Scalia in a condescending tone) which is called the ‘reduction of the absurd.’  If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia affirmed that he was not equating sodomy with murder, but drawing a parallel between the bans on both. Hosie wasn’t satisfied with the answer.  In fact, according to http://LGBTQ Nation, 12/16/12/Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: A duplicitous, totalitarian bigot,” “Scalia is widely known for keeping alive the tradition of disingenuously likening homosexuality to bestiality, incest, and murder.”

Does He Speak with Forked Tongue?

Scalia is famous for his dissents of the Lawrence v. Texas case which struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional  (“ The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are ‘immoral and unacceptable’ – the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity” ) and his 1996 Supreme Court decision overturning a voter-approved, anti-gay referendum in Colorado (“ I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts – or for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them – than I would forbid it to do so.”)

Scalia emphasizes that the Constitution is not a living document, but it, and all laws, should be interpreted by requiring adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.

From Princeton to International Recognition

The gutsy Hosie, although conceded that Scalia was polite, argued that Justice Scalia’s response was not accurate and absurd in many respects during his interview on MSNBC’s The Last Word last week. “I think there is a fundamental difference between arguing that the Constitution doesn’t protect gay rights and saying that the Constitution justifies that we need to use this language when talking about gay rights, and that was the point of my question.”   Professor Turley of Princeton, also on the show, called Scalia’s commentary “troubling.”

Hosie, who received an “overwhelmingly positive” reaction after the story appeared, said “I think he needs to persuade a lot more Americans about his views because I think they’re becoming increasingly out of the mainstream.”

A new gay rights advocate, Hosie is not alone. He speaks for other LGBT individuals who are fearful of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia sitting in judgment on the upcoming cases regarding the critical Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the overturning of California’s Proposition 8.

Perhaps, Justice Scalia should excuse himself from those deliberations?