Bill decriminalizing homosexuality clears key House vote (Montana)

[swag]

Source: KRTV News

On Tuesday, Montana's LGBT community saw a major victory on the House floor as lawmakers passed a bill which decriminalizes homosexuality.

Senate Bill 107 strikes language from Montana law which makes it illegal to have homosexual sex. In a 64 to 36 vote some Republicans joined Democrats in voting to take the language out of Montana code.

Representative Duane Ankney (R-Colstrip) told the chamber that his daughter is a lesbian and she has a right to live her life in the way she chooses. "To say she is any less of a person or she is a criminal for her lifestyle really upsets me," Ankney said choking back tears.

Civil rights activists have been lobbying the Montana Legislature for years trying to get the language pulled from statute, but Republicans have blocked past attempts. The only members to vote against the bill this session were Republicans who cited their religious beliefs saying homosexuality is a sin.

. . .

Representative Dave Hagstrom (R-Billings) says homosexual sex is deviate. "To me sex is primarily purposed to produce people," Hagstrom explained. "Sex that doesn't produce people is deviate. That doesn't mean it's a problem, it just means it's not doing its primary purpose."

. . .

Read more: http://www.krtv.com/news/bill-decriminalizing-homosexuality-clears-key-house-vote/

[William769]

1. Better late than never, I guess.

[DRoseDARs]

2. If the US Supreme Court ruled such laws were unconstitutional over a decade ago...

...wouldn't such laws be null and void at that time, regardless of how long it takes to remove such laws from state books? So if some state, say Alabama, still had on its books that slavery were legal despite having been struck down 150+ years ago, would that law still be applicable until Alabama got around to striking it from its books? The USSC said, "Yeah, no. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional." and that's the end of it, regardless of what the states say. How is this any different? I mean besides, hurr durr, a civil war. Montana Republicans can bitch and moan all they like, but the state law was nullified by the USSC's ruling. This is just legal housekeeping at this point.

And I suppose since they're whipping out the non-baby-producing-sex-is-SIN!!!1 horseshit, can we assume they will be going after infertile and safe sex couples now?

[nomorenomore08]

3. I think this is mostly symbolic. But important for precisely that reason.

Sends a clear message that a certain segment of the population are not deviants or criminals.

[duhneece]

4. Me at 62 yrs old having sex with my 73 yr old partner

Makes us both deviates even tho' we're heterosexual...just wait until he gets to be our age.

[Heywood J]

5. Montana, Uganda?

I guess 36 Montana Republicans have been too busy throwing rocks at their own shadows to move out of the fourth century.

Check the labels on their clothing to make sure they aren't wearing cotton/poly or any other fiber blends.