Salon: Should bestiality be illegal?

posted at 12:41 pm on December 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s important to note that Salon’s Tracy Clark-Flory doesn’t take a position on this difficult question.  Instead, she just offers the post-Lawrence case that it’s really none of our business:

The lawyers aren’t arguing that Romero necessarily has a right to sex with donkeys, or any other farm animals for that matter. They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.

The attorneys write, “Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting.’” And that, they argue, is unconstitutional: “The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties.”

If, however, “the statute were to require sexual conduct with animals to be nonconsensual or to cause injury in order to be a crime, then perhaps the State would have a rational basis and legitimate state interest in enforcement,” they write.

I look forward to the development of the “consenting critters” doctrine.

Recently in the Green Room:

• Re: Atheists and salvation
• “She could always find a violation — at least in her opinion, or in her head.”
• The Warriors—And Families—We Honor
• Anthony Weiner’s campaign website accidentally features the Pittsburgh skyline
• Video: Is the age of the flying car about to arrive?

Blowback