It’s difficult to get beyond the hypocrisy of Lonnie Latham, the prominent Baptist minister from Tulsa who championed anti-gay legislation but was arrested for asking an undercover policeman to have sex. But his lawyer’s arguments during his trial Thursday made sense. He noted the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay sex are unconstitutional. “Now, my client’s being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act,” he said, “which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that’s legal.” The prosecution responded that the state still has laws against — and an interest in controlling — public solicitation for that type of sex, the Tulsa World reported.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Late-night laughs
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
36 Comments
LOL another Haggart! I’m waiting for Terry Fox’s turn!
The state needs to get over themselves and drop the charges, they know they’re in the wrong.
How bout this, all the Baptist and Catholic ministers start a ‘hookup’ chat just for them.
Soliciting for any type of sex is illegal. What’s so hard to understand about that?
He’s guilty.
I would go with offering or asking for money being illegal, but simply asking for sex should not be.I mean sometime in a relationship the subject will come up, LoL though the direct approach maybe not get you what you want! “Hey want to go back to my place?”, has a certain hidden meaning that is not so hidden,But to make asking a crime is too far reaching and is over the top on regulation human interaction.Though from the latest “To catch a predator” in Texas it is a felony to even talk to a minor about sex online.If it is two consenting adult involved it maybe crass but should not be illegal.
writerdog,
It was an undercover police officer. That should be a clue.
Depends on how it is done. If you and somebody else are drunk in a singles bar and you ask that is one thing but if you just walk up to a stranger on a bus and request sex, yeah that is out of bounds!
Yes, it seems that the (unanswered in the article) question in this case is whether was it (a) a solicitation to commit an illegal act, i.e., prostitution, or: (b) “a not to subtle pick-up” line directed toward ultimate consenual sexual relation? Not knowing the Oklahoma statutes, the latter might be a crime — but, if they are prosecuting “pick up lines” at watering holes, probably professional courtesy would require well equipped and nicely decorated cells for legislators, law enforcement officers, and local politicians.
Lonnie, however, might spend his spare time forwarding his resume to Swaggart, Bakker, et al. Or maybe, in the Christian spirit, Phredd might “cure” him.
“The prosecution responded that the state still has laws against — and an interest in controlling — public solicitation for that type of sex,” And it is people like Latham who make sure that it is illegal.
As a sort of “libertarian” in such matters I believe that a pick-up attempt should be legal – as should the slap a woman might give me in return. But for him to get hoisted on his own petard – PRICELESS!
Another Hypocrisy Circumstance of this nature.
The President of the Virgina Chapter of the ACLU and youth coach was arrested for possessing violent child pornagraphy. And this is the same organization that defended NAMBLA.
So I wonder if the ACLA will defend him?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1
I hope they nail the SOB. And, assuming the facts as stated, I hope his fellow inmates find him ‘pretty’
That said, I also hope he gets good legal defense representation. That is a key to our system.
On another thread it was noted that one of the candidates had defended BTK. GOOD! BTK deserved such defense. THEN he deserves a rope.
THis is the same argument used to justify and allow “Sanctuary Cities” not to address illegals.
IF is is OK not to ask an illegal alien if he is illegal, why can’t this guy make the same arbument.
Remember that 14th Amendment? The Equal Protection Clause? You have to treat everybody equally.
“Remember that 14th Amendment? The Equal Protection Clause? You have to treat everybody equally.”
Would that include treating same-sex couples the same as dual-sex couples under the law?
The article does not say he asked to exchange money for sex in the least. So you cannot inject that in there since there is no basis for it.
Obviously prostitution is illegal, and soliciting a prostitute is illegal.
What this man did is not illegal.
Apparently not p-m. Oklahoma still has such a statute on the books. And, like I said, the sweet irony is that is people like Latham who have kept it that way.
What’s with these ‘anti-gay’, ‘anti-same sex marriage’ ministers paying men to have sex with them? Ted Haggard, and now Latham ‘outed’. I guess all of the religious right Kansas Legislators, like Senator Timmie Hueslkamp and all of his kind are just going to have to sign a pledge that they really, REALLY, don’t participate in gay sex. You know. kind of like the anti-tax pledge they all signed. Hummmm…..
PMom: My point exactly. Critical facts of the “solicitation” are curiously omitted therein. Judgment on it’s legality or likewise, absurdity, cannot be determined without the facts nor the Oklahoma statute(s) applicable. If solicitation of a srikingly beautiful member of the opposite sex for a mutually delightful tryst, with no prostitution or solicitation thereof involved, I can only comment a single thought:”Thank God for the statute of limitations”, or I would be duty bound to drive down to “the City” and turn myself in. Thanks for the memories!
rm – apparently you would be safe as long as it was ‘opposite’; however from the article it looks like OK has a law against ’same’
Whoops. I overlooked PB’s link to the actual article. I stand corrected, now having read it. Duh! The SCOTUS ruling application is an interesting defense — however, even if he walks, his “career” (using the term, in this case loosely) is, I would think, pretty much in the crapper. There’s something in the ring of the “First Southern Gay Baptist Tabernacle” that, I sense would be, at best, confusing. Would one’s membership depend upon being a “Southern Gay”, a “Gay Baptist”, a “First Gay Southern(er), a “Gay Southern Baptist but not the first One”, and so on.
Amazingly enough, though, however it goes, I’ll bet we haven’t heard the last of him, after he’s “cured”. What did it take the last one…three weeks, or something like that? Whatever, however, he’s doing, he better not do it standing up…one of his flock might see him and think he was dancing!
ANOTHER gay basher revealed as a closet homosexual??
This is beginning to become a full on epidemic!
It can only be cured by sunlight and allowing exposure and tolerance to the victims of it.
“however, even if he walks, his “career” (using the term, in this case loosely) is, I would think, pretty much in the crapper.”
Uh, no. The only thing his evangelical followers love more than an annointed leader is a fallen and REDEEMED annointed leader. hehehe
RM, the solution is easy. He just goes to rehab and then jesus camp, comes back cured and says he was never really gay, just tempted by the flesh.
I wish his supporters were looking to buy some farmland in western Kansas…
So much for the Democrits being the party of tolerance. Just look at all the bashing they do when they get a chance to pummel someone. Tolerance! ha! More like BS artists.
And what will they do about their ACLU buddy?
Roscoe – we have only done to him what he told us to do.
Joe! You saw my comments about the ACLU guy. Reading-challenged today? Look at 8:43.
Roscoe, you ignorant slut.
It’s not the fact that he’s gay that we object to–it’s the fact that he’s a self-loathing hypocritical gay who uses homophobia to whip up his congregation for his own personal gain.
If you can’t see the difference, you have the IQ of an orangutan.
Well I think that slap!, slap!, slap!… Um thanks kfg, I needed that, but that’s enough dear.
This would add speculation to just what it is that drives the hate of Fred Phelps and clan…..
Ben OK can’t have a law that is in violation of the Supreme Court rulings on the matter. So therefore the law is void.
Point proven!
I don’t know p-mom; I’ll defer to the lawyer types.
Roscoe – the point here is that we are only saying what he wants us to say about him. Kind of like noting that, according to Rush, Rush himself is a dregof humanity. Makes for a somewhat difficult situation.
Actually, I think these guys place themselves in an untenable situation. By labeline that which they are as being evil dirty dregs they are self-loathing. We onlynote that they should be held to the standard that they advocate.
I was wondering when the Protestants, and Baptists would catch up to the Catholic priests — time to out some rabbi’s now.
Well, it looks like Latham has joined the ranks of other gay gay-bashers like J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn. As much as I would like to see that guy rotting in jail, hypocrisy isn’t a crime.Asking for sex (assuming no coercion is involved), while certainly the crude way to get laid, shouldn’t be a crime either, be it gay or straight. Don’t the police have enough to do without hanging around restrooms trying to get hit on?
If you bribe an officer with sex to get out of a speeding ticket, that’s illegal. Cops can bust you for that. You can’t bribe them with money, sex, not even donuts!
Will,As I understand the Latham case, no bribery was involved and the officer was undercover anyway.
An interesting defense, to be sure; but one which I believe will not prevail.
The SCOTUS opinion referenced by the defense struck down the Texas sodomy law; it did not, in any way, shape or form, address solicitation. Thus, while any statutes proscribing the conduct envisioned by the “question” might well be unconstitutional, asking the question is a separate matter. As was set out by rm, supra, there are many missing “facts” not discernible from the article linked.
A thought: if murder is still unlawful, then solicitation of another to commit murder should also be unlawful, correct? Thus, if a variety of sexual conduct remains unlawful, soliciting another therefor should remain unlawful. Apparently, this is the reverse of the approach taken by the defense, that is, as the conduct is no longer unlawful, then solicitation of another therefor should no longer be unlawful.
While I agree with Ben, there are other considerations at work here; public policy would, I believe, wish to prohibit solicitation of a minor by an adult for sex, as it is the stated public policy that the underlying conduct, viz, an adult having sexual relations with a minor is and should continue to be unlawful.
I am of the opinion in this case that the legislature is the appropriate agency to address the issue raised, and the courts should so rule. While a 14th amendment argument might be raised, if the Oklahoma statute(s) in question also proscribe heterosexual “solicitation”, then there is not disparate treatment, and thus the said argument fails on its face. Thank goodness for the applicable statutes of limitation is my final thought for now.
I have to agree on your last sentiment VT. I lived in OK long ago … we used to drive up to Ark City for beer under 21.
I find it quite amusing that the people who take it upon themselves to tell the rest of us how to run our sex lives seem to be the ones with the kinkiest desires and the least ability to control themselves.