https://kutv.com/news/local/sex-for-unmarried-in-utah-may-no-soon-be-legalized?new&fbclid=IwAR2I81oSi4WqzLwHd0FkSXmvMFtZskGxVhcMY_XMOUC4zMEZ1pvUG6YYFbo
SALT LAKE CITY — (KUTV) — With the stroke of a pen, sex for the unmarried in the Beehive State could be legalized. A bill changing the criminal code in Utah may soon remove
fornication as a class B misdemeanor.
Sen. Karen Mayne is the chief sponsor, while Rep. Ray Paul is the sponsor in the state's House. It has been voted on and passed by both bodies, meaning it is only awaiting a signature
by Gov. Gary Herbert. If it becomes law, it will remove the fornication clause from Utah's criminal code.
The current law is part of Chapter 7 Offenses Against the Family, meaning those found guilty are punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. The law isn't pursued by
police or prosecuted and is unenforceable.
"Hey baby, wanna commit what was until recently a class B misdemeanor in Utah?"
That ought to cut crime rates a bit
Has anyone actually been convicted of this recently?
It is in the article...
The law isn't pursued by police or prosecuted and is unenforceable.
Oops. Sorry about that. I am on mobile and it is easy to miss things. I will have to go and see if it was ever enforced.
Suprised this wasn't unconstitutional somehow
I'm pretty liberal and progressive, but I think this bill is pushing it too much.
Thanks to the Mormon population Utah is full of objectively retarded laws like this.
It is unquestionably unconstitutional and unenforceable. This legislation is just housekeeping.
I don't understand what you mean? How would it be liberal to make sex out of wedlock a crime? I am clearly missing something you are saying.
It's sarcasm
Damn my Asperger's!
You progressives are off your rockers. First it's unmarried sex, then it's public handholding, where does it stop?
We must stop it before women begin baring their shoulders in public
I'm fairly confident that Kennedy has analysed marital/nonmarital sex through the line of his LGBT decisions, but the Court has never held on the issue specifically to my knowledge. Virginia's Supreme Court found banning premarital sex to be unconstitutional pursuant to Lawrence v. Texas, which is the SCOTUS case that found criminalizing sodomy violated a fundamental liberty interest to engage in under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
SCOTUS hasn't explicitly held premarital sex prohibitions to be unconstitutional. But Lawrence v. Texas held that criminalizing sodomy violated the fundamental liberty interest to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing." Someone might attempt to argue that under ejusdem generis (fancy legal term that means "of the same kind" and says to interpret vague listed items pursuant to specific listed items) that the holding only applies to those in a marriage relationship. Most of the due process cases in this line have heavily emphasized the sanctity of the marital home. But I don't think that's the right reading. The sentence has implied terms - to marry (or not), to procreate (or not), to use contraception (or not), etc.
It probably is but it's hard to get a hearing before a judge without being charged with such a crime first.
hey now that's still illegal in the mormon state and no so called supreme court and its so called supremacy clause can say anything about it in the eyes of the church (of lds)
Way to join the rest of us in the 1800s, Utah.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
