Why is it that laws that should be overturned come to light in cases where the defendant was acting sort of ... scuzzy? Apparently, in Ohio, it's illegal for people of the same sex to proposition each other. You can actually have sex with each other -- Ohio doesn't currently have a sodomy law -- you just can't ask about having sex with each other. A legal conundrum that bends the mind. Of course, the facts of the case are the sort that will allow the Ohio courts to exercise their prejudices in all sorts of unique ways. It cannot be disputed, for example, that popping into a bathroom stall while someone is using it and asking them to have sex could be construed as "reckless" behavior. I also cannot imagine that, under those circumstances, it would have been any more allowable to have asked the man if he were gay. How would that not have been considered "importuning", under those circumstances?
The legal problem for the defendant, aside from the logical conundrum and the whole conviction thing, is that the statute does not, in fact, discriminate on the basis of gender; women aren't allowed to proposition each other, either. It's just that women, under such circumstances, are considerably less likely to try to attack each other. It is also an unfortunate fact that because this country is so uptight about sex generally and homosexuality in particular, one man propositioning another in circumstances where sexuality is unknown is more likely to lead to violence; we've seen ample evidence of such violence the past few years -- or, to be more precise, we've seen ample evidence of cases where purportedly straight men claimed to have been so revolted by such propositions that they just had to murder the one propositioning them.
Of course, the proper response to that is that any unwelcome proposition carries with it the potential for an inappropriate and excessive response; if they're going to regulate sexual propositions, then they should regulate all of them. This current law has the effect of specifically discriminating against homosexuals and their rights of association, as it were.
However, given the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court the last time the law was challenged, in 1979, I would fully expect that the conviction will be sustained and the law upheld. I am frankly baffled as to why men propositioning each other would have been "acceptable in a more barbarous age when human dignity hadn ot reached the level expected by citizens in our modern society." I am even more baffled when you consider that only 30 years ago, the behavior for which one would be "importuning" was flatly illegal in Ohio; they consider the 60s and 70s to have been "barbarous"? (It would be fascinating to know when the importuning statute was enacted. One suspects that it was a reaction to the fall of Ohio's sodomy law, but one could be mistaken.)
Replies: 2 comments
I was curious to know the exact source for the 1979 challenge.
Posted by Kyle Sims @ 02/08/2002 05:37 PM CST
I was curious to know the exact source for the 1979 challenge.
Posted by Kyle Sims @ 02/08/2002 05:38 PM CST
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!