Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:5
Registered on:6/3/2013
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
That would not be a good idea.

Beastiality is already against the law in Louisiana under R.S. 14:89(A)1.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas would not have affected the beastiality section of the law.

But one could see how a defense attorney might try to muddy the waters by making such a claim.

Senator Claitor’s solution was to delete the unconstitutional portion of the law and leave the beastiality section in place as is.

Senator Morrell’s solution was to move the beastiality portion of the law to a new section of the law (R.S. 14:89.3) and to delete the reference in the existing law on Sodomy. He elected to leave the provision on sodomy in the existing law.
Actually, in this case, you have it backwards.

Senator Claitor and the 9 Republicans wanted to eliminate the unconstitutional law regarding Sodomy.

Senator Morrell left the unconstitutional law regarding Sodomy in place (but said he wants to remove it later). He removed the references to animals from the law that addressed sodomy and put the animal reference into a separate law.