Over the weekend, the Houston Chronicle reported that Rep. James White, R-Hillister, thinks Texas’ anti-sodomy language is just fine where it is.
When asked about how it’s different from his proposal to erase language about the state’s hair-braiding rules, recently ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court, he said, quite contrary there is a difference.
“Absolutely, there is a difference,” he said. While the braiding regulation “was a way of disenfranchising them out of the marketplace. I don’t necessarily think this was the case with sodomy.”
But there’s one slight problem: the law was ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision.
“By leaving this provision in the law it’s insulting to Texans in the (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) community. It’s inconsistent, bordering on hypocritical to say one should remove something that’s been struck down … and not remove other statutes and language that has been struck down,” Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, told the Chronicle.
But sodomy doesn’t end with an ass crack. Indeed, that ass crack’s only a gateway to bestiality. “Sodomy covers a lot of instances. It can even cover bestiality and there are a lot of public health standards and even decency standards,” White said.
Lest you forget, however, facts do not matter in Legeland.