I am beginning to think that the GOP can only talk about sex when they are trying to define it for the rest of us…….like what Florida is trying to do……
What does “sexual intercourse” mean in Florida? The state’s Supreme Court justices are pondering the question in a case that threatens to weaken a 1986 law requiring HIV-positive people to reveal their infection before having “sexual intercourse.” A defense lawyer told the court yesterday that Florida’s laws have always used the term to describe traditional sex between a man and a woman, and not any other sexual activity by either gender. The case involves a man charged with a felony after failing to tell his male sex partner he was HIV-positive. The record shows that Gary Debaun’s partner asked him to take an HIV test, and that Debaun, who knew that he was infected, gave him fake test results showing he was free of the virus that causes AIDS.
“In the history of Florida law, the specific term ‘sexual intercourse’ has always been interpreted to mean reproductive sexual conduct,” said Debaun’s public defender, who’s trying to get the charge dropped. “It’s not the way that I’d want to define it, maybe—maybe not the way you’d want to define it—but that’s the way it’s always been in Florida law.” Most states legally require people with HIV to disclose the infection to sex partners, but the public defender told the justices that other states’ laws use the term “sexual activity” or specifically spell out sexual acts, rather than use Florida’s narrow language. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Geldens argued that it was clear that the statute was enacted with the intent to protect people who engaged in any kind of sexual activity.
This from the party that thinks the government has no business telling people what to do….as long it is what they, the GOP, believe…..
But hold on! Utah had to be part of the conversation……..
A Utah bill stating that unconscious people cannot consent to sex proved to be more controversial than expected when it came before a legislative committee earlier this week. Rep. Brian Greene wondered if it meant that somebody who had sex with an unconscious spouse could be charged with rape, saying a rape charge “makes sense in a first date scenario, but to me, not where people have a history of years of sexual activity,” the Salt Lake Tribune reports. After at least one other Republican voiced similar concerns, an attorney from the Utah Prosecution Council explained that under the bill, “consent is a decision that has to be made at the time of the act” and you “cannot give consent to sexual activity if you’re unconscious.”
Sex with an unconscious person “is rape. Period. End of story,” Democratic Rep. Brian King told the committee, according to the Tribune. Greene ended up voting for the bill and apologized for his comments yesterday, saying he abhors “sexual assault under any circumstances, including within marriage.” The director of the Rape Recovery Center tells USA Today she hadn’t expected a debate and was shocked by Greene’s comments. “He’s a lawyer, you think he would know better,” she says. “But with the kind of work we do, we realize that so many people don’t understand this issue.” The bill was introduced after a 2013 case where a man claimed he had sex with an unconscious neighbor on her porch to keep her warm and “save her life,” Politico reports.
See…..the GOP is a prudish bunch of sex addicts……..I know that sounds like an oxymoron……but the GOP still thinks it has a right to intervene in the bedroom……..