North Carolina Laws Are So Gay
If you are straight, unmarried (or separated) and living in North Carolina, I’ve got some bad news for you: getting laid is illegal. North Carolina General Statute 14-184 provides that:
§ 14‑184. Fornication and adultery.
If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor: Provided, that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.
If you are gay, however, no problem. Two men or two women are, after all, not “any man and woman,” and are therefore incapable of violating NCGS § 14‑184 even if they wanted to. Granted, they would violate NCGS 14-177, which provides that:
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.
but as long as the “crime against nature” is committed with mankind rather than beast, it’s clearly protected under Lawrence v. Texas. So if you are married and feel like doing anyone other than your spouse, or if you’re an unmarried and feel like doing anyone at all, just remember this. If either you or your partner has got a schlong, the other had better have one, too.
UPDATE: Commenter Robert notes that this law is probably unconstitutional. I say probably because a judge so ruled in 2006, but the ruling was never appealed so its precedential value is debatable. Then again, it does appear to enjoin everyone who could ever enforce the law, so if you have a law no one can enforce, is it really a law? If a tree falls in the forest, etc.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Actually, Lawrence v. Texas would (or should) give the same protection to a straight couple as to a gay couple. The decision was not that laws specifically against homosexual activity are illegal, but that the state cannot enforce laws against sexual activity between consenting adults when those acts are done in private.* It was based on privacy grounds, not equal protection grounds.
There is some question about if those acts can be prosecuted if they are made public but performed in private. Just as an example, if a gay man asks another, while they are in public, to come home with him (a private location), and they are overheard, he may be subject to prosecution for soliciting a felony – the solicitation took place in public, and the act is still a felony. Similarly, someone posting on his blog that he had sex with his girlfriend/boyfriend could be subject to prosecution, because he has brought knowledge of the act into the public sphere. I don’t believe any scenarios like these have been brought up in court yet.
For either, if your blinds have a gap, or your curtains aren’t quite closed, you can be prosecuted because it is now taking place in public.
Also note that if a gay couple loses that cover of privacy, it’s always a felony, whereas for a straight couple it’s likely a misdemeanor (depending on the specific act).
(*Cohabitation may not be covered, because that is essentially public knowledge.)
July 30th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Not sure I buy that logic. In Lawrence, the act was personally observed by cops whose lawful presence in the house was not in question. If the act itself were a legitimate crime, the conviction would have stuck.
August 12th, 2010 at 11:14 am
[...] Xlrq notes that North Carolaina’s laws against fornication and adultery favor gay sex. This is a pretty amusing chapter in the law of unintended consequences. [...]
August 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
what about group sex? Both man and woman are singular.
If a woman is double teamed – that strikes me as not being covered either. Or a guy getting double teamed by two ladies.
Or a full blown orgy.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Actually, that law was repealed a few years ago (2006) after a court case came up where some sheriffs deputy got fired because she was living with someone. But for some reason, it still shows up on the NC general statutes webpage.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“In Lawrence, the act was personally observed by cops whose lawful presence in the house was not in question. If the act itself were a legitimate crime, the conviction would have stuck.”
It was my understanding that the police were acting under a tip for something, and obtained a warrant to enter a private place. Thus, perhaps the logic will still stand.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
IIRC, they were acting on a (false) drug tip. The ruling basically stated that sexual activity conducted in private between consenting adults cannot be banned – because they had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in their home, they had not committed a crime and the conviction was overturned.
There have been some “bathroom hookup” cases in Virginia that have come up (I believe the first one after Lawrence went to the state supreme court) where the conviction was upheld on the grounds that the activity took place (or was proposed to take place, since it was a sting) in a public setting (a public restroom).
One key point in the Lawrence decision is that a person’s choice of partner is a deeply personal and private decision that is a key component of liberty, and that the government has no business in it as long as those involved are consenting adults. This reasoning is pretty gay/straight neutral, thus my statement last month that the protections should apply to heterosexual relationships, too.
My worries, like I said, are based on the “in private” limitations of the Lawrence decision and the subsequent decisions in Virginia. If you talk about it in public – publicly stating that you have performed actions that are criminal if they are not kept private – do you lose the protections by giving up the shield of privacy? Or is the fact that the act was not actually done in public leave that protection in place, no matter how publicly you proclaim it?
I don’t believe that’s come up in any courts yet, but I certainly have no interest in becoming a test case.
(Also, sorry I never responded to your reply in #2, Xrlq. I got distracted for a bit by real life and just never made it back.)
Jake´s last [type] ..Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!