Some prosecutors are obsessed with the sex they're not having.
Slate just churned out this rather mean-spirited article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/ken_cuccinelli_s_sodomy_obsession_the_frightening_legal_implications_of.html
But as mean as it is, it's also kind of true.
Cuccinelli actually forced the issue and got the Supreme Court of Virginia to strike down their fornication statute. I had to use that case arguing against a fornication charge.
I lost. I know, how ironic, seeing as how Idaho.
Later I realized that the trouble was that our buttfuck statute ("THE INFAMOUS CRIME AGAINST NATURE" seriously that's what it is called and it is in all caps in the statute book) survived even federal district court level scrutiny- because it was used in a case involving a minor. 9th Circuit wasn't touching that one.
Not long ago a Sheriff up north decided he wouldn't support the Boy Scouts anymore because they allow gay kids and that violates the law! THE INFAMOUS LAW.
As for the Idaho Supreme Court- they upheld discriminating between rape of a female and "male rape" (yes, we have a separate law called "male rape") because clearly the government has a perfectly good reason for finding raping women worse- it can produce unwanted offspring.
Evidently, the idea of women raping men never entered the judicial mind.
So what's up with all this? You. You people keep voting in deranged sex obsessed representatives to write your laws and others to enforce them. And I'm left sitting on a court bench listening to the prosecutor assigned NOTHING BUT CHILD SEX CASES tell me how my clients should be sterilized so they can't have kids anymore. All my clients. "Put it in the meth," he offers.
Lord, some days I'd rather just lock the lot of you up in a big room and let you sort it out among yourselves.
I'm goin' fishin'.