*promote the insanity of Republicans trying to put the government in your bedroom and wiping their ass with the constitution in the effort.
So much for 'we hate big government intrusion in private citizen's lives', or 'we're the party that respects the constitution' or even 'we're the party of freedom lovers'...how on earth are they going to explain this? One more act by the right that's completely antithetical to their stated goals, morals, ethics, reason, the law, .....
Can this criminally insane party please just die and let the rest of the world evolve? It is really reaching the point where being Republican qualifies as a legitimate reason for involuntary commitment.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 29th, 2016 2:58pm PST - promote requested by original submitter newtboy.

Another useless law unless they catch you.
So much for street prostitutes. 15 years for a BJ. Ouch.

Guess we will have to go to the government owned Bunny Ranch in Nevada for a legal BJ and to get your butt plugged.

Sorry @newtboy, gotta downvote this one on the basis that Cenk is making a big deal out of nothing.

Michigan didn't make sodomy and oral sex illegal, it's ALREADY illegal in Michigan. (Hell, it was illegal to swear in front of women and children until 2002, when they were forced to repeal the law after a man fell out of a canoe, swore, got arrested, and then was represented by the ACLU.)

But here's the thing, the ban is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.

Now, should it be removed? Of course.

However, the idea behind this bill was an amendment to the existing bill to create an animal abuser database, and the guy who proposed the bill (Republican Senator Rick Jones) decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort to fight to get this removed when it's already unconstitutional anyway.

In other words, he took a pragmatic approach to fixing an important issue (animal abuse) by ignoring something that doesn't matter (an unenforceable law).

To his credit, he actually suggested another bill that would automatically strike unconstitutional laws from the state (which kinda seems like something that should be happening anyway).

"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." Rick Jones

http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/

Yes, it's fucking stupid, but "fucking stupid" seems to be the defining trait of most of the US system of government (two party system, electoral college, tacking on stupid amendments, etc)

Vote as you like, but I think you missed the important point being made (agreed, made excessively poorly, even disingenuously by Cenk) that this was an intentional squandering of the perfect time to remove the offending, illegal portions of the law, and leaving them in may (I'm no legal scholar, but often if one part is invalid, the entire document is invalid) invalidate the whole thing and require another re-write, taking more time, money, and effort, all of which are in short supply.

Is it a BIG deal, no...at least I hope not. There's always the possibility that they'll actually try to use it again to prosecute homosexuals, forcing them to 'prove' they aren't sodomites in court (an impossibility, btw) or go to prison or at best be forced to publicly re-address and re-litigate it over and over as they appeal up to the supreme court, destroying them professionally and financially, as has been done many times in the past.
Please do note that most 'homosexual behavior' has been illegal in the South in the past, and those laws have been repeatedly used to destroy people's lives and families, often based on false accusations, and despite their unconstitutionality and immorality. Leaving those laws on the books, even when they've been deemed unenforceable, leaves many people in a legal limbo. They can never feel safe in their own state and there's the reality that every time a new public official is elected they have to wonder if they'll have to fight this fight once again. Many times states have decided to enforce unconstitutional laws, and while in the end they were struck down, those they are applied against in the mean time are often destroyed.
Also, because they can't successfully prosecute someone for this unconstitutional law doesn't mean they can't use it to 'out' them, or investigate them until they find something they can prosecute, as has also happened in the past.
...But I don't think Cenk tried to make any of those points, he was just pointing out this blatant hypocrisy, which is representative of Republicans spending their exceedingly limited legislating time, effort, and money doing ridiculous, illegal, meaningless things, but completely fail at doing anything helpful, meaningful, or even legal like removing the offensive, unconstitutional part of the law when you're already re-writing and re-voting on a law, or maybe finding a way to get Flint non-poisoned water, or finding a way to put those responsible for poisoning an entire community (whether by negligence or out of greed) in prison, and it's representative of their complete hypocrisy about the party platform, which is conveniently completely forgotten when 'out of control government intrusion' is on their side.
I do completely admit he could have been far clearer about what really happened rather than imply they wrote this in as an amendment, bad Cenk.

@newtboy, it's not that they shouldn't be doing anything about the water situation; obviously, they should.

But just because problem 1 (water) is worse doesn't mean you can't deal with problem 2 (animal abuse).

Think about it this way: if Jones HAD proposed removing the anti-sodomy laws as part of this legislation, the state senate would have wasted even more time having a completely pointless debate about it. Instead, he chose the pragmatic route of ignoring something that isn't and hasn't been a problem* to use his limited legislating time to pass a useful law around animal abuse.

Also, IANAL, but from what I've read on the topic, one bad section does not invalidate an entire bill.

It saddens me greatly that in 2016 in a developed country, there's even a debate on an anti-sodomy law, and quite frankly, anyone who supports one is a terrible person and should get the fuck out of politics (and preferably life) at the earliest opportunity.

But that's the US political climate.

* when was the last time anyone was actually prosecuted under this law? Honestly, someone should confess to sodomy, get prosecuted and have the law struck down in court.

I never intended to imply that it was an either/or choice. (EDIT: Sadly, it seems that may be the case, as they have yet to meaningfully address the water issue)

Since they DID change the law, they debated it. Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?
And for the reasons I delineated above, it's not pointless. Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless. They certainly have been a problem in the past, and as I said, holding the specter of their use returning is a horror we should not tolerate being inflicted on so many for no reason.
IANAL?
Your next paragraph is my point...I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes. That they neglect to take those 2 minutes, and instead again ratified this disgusting, unconstitutional part of an otherwise (seemingly) reasonable law is more than disgusting, it's a total shirking of their duty.
But yes, that's the US political climate. We're doomed.

*How's 1 year ago? Recent enough? There may be more recent.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

EDIT: I understand that most people outside the US would be surprised that these laws are still on the books and being used, but they are. Often not prosecuted, but used to PERSECUTE instead.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

I guess I didn't understand that part. That's incredibly depressing, that even discussing removing unconstitutional parts of a law would stop all discussion. We're worse off than even I imagined.

OK, considering what Mr Jones said, "Futile" I can agree with, although it also makes me depressed to think that's where we are as a country.

Sorry, I don't know acronyms, it probably is commonly known.

Touche. I guess yes, I can imagine a politician supporting it, but I WISH I couldn't. I WANT to think we're more adult than that....I would be wrong, but that's what I WANT to think.

Please note, we had a ruling against ALL these laws in 2003, so another precedent from 2015 doesn't give me much hope we won't see more of this.

Again, it doesn't make it WORSE, because it's already terrible. IF these laws were unused and just never removed, that would be one thing. Since they are STILL used against people, this is a battle I wish someone had picked.

Yep and where did that ruling come from? The supreme court, i.e. not politicians who pander to their idiot homophobic base.

I'm fine with someone picking this as a battle. As I said, it might come down to one brave couple "confessing" and forcing the law to be tested in court.

But sometimes, when you're fixing the ignition, you have to let the worn out shocks slide. Yeah, you need to sort that shit out, but it's not the job you're working on right now.

I get your point, but I feel this is more akin to fixing the ignition but ignoring the fact that there are no brakes on the car. It's all fine to do it that way, unless you put the car on the road before you fix it all.
I just fear that leaving these laws (or portions thereof) in effect means they will be used and abused to abuse people, as they have been used in the past. I find them disgusting attempts to make homosexuality illegal, and leaving them on the books also indicated it's immoral by the states measure. That needs to be fixed, as it dehumanizes a large number of people for nothing.
I hope someone WILL pick this up as a battle worth fighting. I don't want my tax dollars going to support homophobic, illegal, immoral laws, their use, or even their removal by the courts when it would be so simple and reasonable to have taken care of it as they re-wrote the law. It's abhorrent to me that it's assumed that just bringing this issue up would end debate and halt the bill...it's likely reality, but it's disgusting.

To be clear, it doesn't effect me. I live in Cali, and I'm not getting any anal anyway (giving or receiving), but no oral?!? Screw that, yo. I'm sure glad Cali lets me get my freak on.

let's *promote this assholery

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 29th, 2016 3:05pm PST - promote requested by kulpims.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.