Idaho “crimes against nature” lawsuit heads towards settlement
After nearly two years, Idaho is moving towards settling a case over how it handles sex offenders convicted of sodomy crimes.
The lawsuit filed in September 2020 involves two men. One, who is anonymous, was convicted of so-called “crimes against nature” in another state for performing oral sex on his wife.
Idaho’s sex offender registry law forces anyone to sign up if they’ve been convicted of a crime in another state that’s “substantially similar” to an Idaho law requiring registration.
The other, Randall Menges, was convicted in 1994 for having oral sex with two 16-year-old boys shortly after he turned 18 – something that would not meet the definition of statutory rape today.
Idaho required both men to register as sex offenders.
But last September, Federal District Court Judge Lynn Winmill blocked the state from doing so, saying it violated their constitutional rights.
Those on the sex offender registry are limited in where they can live, what jobs they can hold and who they can interact with.
What a married couple does, what husband and wife consent to in the privacy of their bedroom is their private business. Plus even the Bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled. So what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their physical intimacy/in their romantic life is not a crime and should not be a crime.
How the hell does a guy get convicted of a sex crime for a consensual act with his wife? And if this occurred in the privacy of their bedroom, why should the government be sticking its nose in a married couple’s business? What a married couple , or even an unmarried couple does consensually in the privacy of their own home is no one’s business but their own.
What’s next? The government telling people what they can and cannot eat, or what times they can eat?
As long as what this guy and his wife were doing wasn’t being deliberately done in front of an open window for kids passing by to see, he should never have been charged.
I’m very curious to know what the “facts” of his case are.
Yes but incredibly, until Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, it was the position of the government, via the Supreme Court, that those things could be the state’s business if the state so decided.
Our jurisprudence unfortunately seems to be veering back in that direction if you’ve noticed. That’s why it’s so critical to be politically involved.