http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2016/02/bills_aimed_at_stopping_abuser.html
Jones' Senate Bill 219 would require Michigan's courts to order those convicted of certain crimes against animals, as part of their sentence, to neither own nor possess an animal for at least five years. For minor offenses, the five-year ban would only be mandatory on the second offense.
"Minor offenses" like "• Physical abuse of an animal". But not "bestiality". Obviously that's not a "minor offense".
The bill actually says
A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years
/r/lgbt noticed that too: https://np.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/44by8o/michigans_proposed_pet_adoption_bill_contains/
Apparently some people didn't know that it's an old law that only got it's wording updated and that it is unenforcable because of the Lawrence v. Texas supreme court decision. Well, I'm still banned from /r/lgbt, so whatever.
Still, one has to wonder why they update the wording instead of simply removing it. Alone the wording "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" should be regarded as a total anachronism in modern laws...
Apparently people are also under the misconception that this part is about stopping animal abuse. No, it isn't. It's not a law for crimes against animals. It's a law for crimes against nature. They were concerned about what people do sexually, not about any harm that may or may not come to anyone. These can be totally victimless crimes. It's literally in the same sentence that bans "crimes against nature" committed by consenting humans. Reading a bit about it, this seems actually to mean anal sex and depending on the jurisdiction oral sex too. What it means in regards to animals is everyone's guess - apparently it means all sexual contact, but since the whole concept is made up intentionally vague to mean whatever they want it to mean, meh.
Tl;dr: No use spending much time getting angry about it. It's an archaic paragraph in the law that should be removed altogether, as usual some people would disagree about removing the second part.
Crimes against jeebus
This is the only reason laws like this exist.
I'm at a point that I doubt they even care about the welfare of animals.
The funniest thing about Michigan:
Yeah, the law needs to get scrapped. You can still have a general anti-animal abuse law though.
This law is actually being critisized now for being in conflict with the former supreme court ruling federally legalizing anal sex. It's a good grounds to get it removed, and actually that same court case is a good foundation to get ALL bestiality laws overturned, if we could ever get it heard. I for one hope this conflict does make it to the supreme court, because it'd likely result in our arguments finally getting heard.
I thought it was already deemed unconstitutional due to Lawrence V Texas (2003).
I think it would be best if the law were very detailed. I think animal abuse should be prosecuted, but it would be problematic to have a law that just says, "animal abuse is illegal". Many would claim animal/human sexual relations as animal abuse. How about eating meat? Is that animal abuse? I think pouring boiling water on a cat is abuse, but the law should be worded in a good way to prioritize serious cases.
One issue that keeps a straight-up "no human/animal sexual contact" from being added is animal husbandry (mating animals for farm use). This was mentioned in the discussion of Florida's "anti-bestiality" law.
That's the ruling I was referring to. This law (and any modifications like this that draw from it) are unenforcable as they are in direct conflict with Lawrence V Texas. As such, this is a great opportunity to point out how Lawrence V Texas pretty much makes all blanket bestiality laws unconstitutional if you analyze the ruling.
Why wan't this already a thing? I wonder how many other states allow past (physically) abusive people to adopt.
Only if a judge orders it and there are very few systems in place to actually do an "abuser lookup"
You´re banned from the lgbt sub? Quite ironic, isn´t it?
Well...a lot of those people are quite trigger happy if they don't like you and it doesn't take a whole lot to get banned from either one of these subreddits or other groups on the internet. You tell'em something they don't want to hear and they make sure that you leave and never return (safe spaces... shudder).
But I get what you mean and kinda have to agree...
They have strict subreddit rules and moderators (Apparently they didn't like me mentioning "LGBTZ"). /r/ainbow is more open to not banning people, but they also get fewer threads, probably because lgbt is the more obvious subreddit to find first.
only applicable if you get caught. top tip, dont show pics to your then gf (unless she's the dog :P ).
I wonder if these laws and ones similar to it have ever stopped a Zoophile from doing the do.
Yes. Me. (Similar laws, not this specific one).
Irony is, the law that stopped me was the British law, but I have been in Germany when it was still legal there.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/michigan_senate_passes_bill_saying_sodomy_is_a_felony
As I said:
It's not a law to protect animals, it's a law to forbid certain sex acts regardless of context or harm.
As to my question why they didn't remove it:
Wut?
Michigan sounds completely wacked. It sounds like they consider being in conflict with past supreme court rulings a NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE thing.