Monday, January 24, 2005

PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC: "Gays" say there's no difference

If you have the stomach, take a look at the recent article in Boston's GLBT newspaper, Bay Windows. Just as we said in our piece below (Worcester Police Recognize "Unnatural" Acts), radical homosexuals aim to eradicate any concept of "public lewdness". And sure enough, their take on the story out of Worcester is that those arrested for unnatural acts and indecent exposure were not violating any laws.

The homosexual legal argument goes like this: The patrons at the "gay" porn theater would all have expected that such behaviors were going on, and would be in sympathy with it. Unless the intent of those engaged in these acts is to offend others, there is no crime. As one patron said, "Nobody goes in there that doesn't know what's happening. Anyone who goes in there is immediately primed to sex. Why are they going? ... [because] they either want to watch or take part."

Further, as long as the patrons have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in the theater, their sex acts should be considered private! (I guess it's pretty dark in there. And the seat backs are high. So ... it's private.) Our beloved Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2002 that no one can "be prosecuted for 'unnatural acts'--one of the state's two sodomy laws--if they are engaging in behavior that is private and consensual," according to the Bay Windows story.

Have you wondered why the police are so hesitant to make arrests like those in Worcester? Why you have to be wary of public restrooms or parks? A sad example: In two of our towns proudest of their history, Lexington and Concord, the police seem to have given up on controlling the open homosexual sex polluting the Minuteman Park and Estabrook Woods. The Police Chief of Concord even admitted a few years ago at a public meeting that he was "scared" to go into the woods and break up this activity, though residents complained bitterly about the thoroughly-engaged male couples, and the mattresses in the high grass, and the condoms littering the paths.

Bay Windows explains:
Public sex cases often turn on the question of "a reasonable expectation of privacy," i.e. whether a particular place is isolated enough that a reasonable person would see no significant risk of being discovered. It's an issue that the Massachusetts State Police confronted with GLAD's assistance in 2001, when the organization settled a harassment case against the department on behalf of a gay man who alleged he was being harassed at a highway rest stop in Wareham by a state trooper. As part of the settlement, the State Police adopted guidelines preventing troopers from deliberately trudging into wooded areas near rest stops looking for men who were having sex. At the time, GLAD's Gary Buseck said the guidelines essentially instructed troopers that "not everything done outdoors is public." There is a significant body of law about what constitutes a public or a private place and depending on the circumstances, said Klein, and a movie theater may not necessarily be public place. [sic]
and sick.