Warren v. Virginia: a court case that zoos lost

[gaiden88]

What there is is a right to be free from government interference without a compelling reason.

Not true, at least in the United States. Compelling interest tests are only applied to the analysis of laws that fall under strict scrutiny (such as religion, race, alienage, childbearing). As noted in the case that started this thread, laws about animals need only pass the rational basis test, which in layman's terms means the government can basically regulate the subject in any manner they feel is appropriate. I can think of only one instance where a court actually overturned a law based on that test.

 

[Gemini75]

Thank you gaiden88 for providing a voice of reason. Finally some sign of intelligence around here.

 

[Zoo50]

gaiden88 is wrong. Anti-zoo laws are wrong, they are unjust, and they are unconstitutional. The problem is that courts have such a strong anti-zoo bias (prejudice) that they aren't willing to recognize a person's right to have sex with an animal.

 

[gaiden88]

And what part of the constitution do you think they violate?

 

[Zoo50]

Anti-zoo laws violate due process and equality before the law because preferential treatment is given to some activities involving animal sex organs (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering) but not others. The government does not have a legitimate interest in banning all sex with animals.

 

[arcticwolf69]

Anti-zoo laws violate due process and equality before the law because preferential treatment is given to some activities involving animal sex organs (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering) but not others. The government does not have a legitimate interest in banning all sex with animals.

do you not notice the SEX distinction
Sexual act IS the distinction for the laws

 

[caikgoch]

do you not notice the SEX distinction
Sexual act IS the distinction for the laws

Not true. I am legally involved in the sex lives of many millions of non-humans of diverse species every year. It's called "agriculture". It can be considered neglect if I don't handle my stallion's penis regularly. It is considered best practices to collect him regularly. So we're down to you don't like the exact method I use to collect him even though he prefers it.

 

[arcticwolf69]

However the distinction in zoo laws is the sexual act, or perhaps gratification of that act that the laws ban and punish for.
Is that not the reason all the anti beast laws i have seen use exclusions for accepted animal husbandry, breeding and such?
As you said it is about the EEEEEWWW factor most are based on. So we're down to you don't like the exact method I use to collect him even though he prefers it. That pretty much sums up a lot of the laws. If the laws were about actual sexual abuse, why would many such laws add actual exclusions about proof of abuse? Adding language that allows a general consensus that it might have been abusive to the animal even when the animal shows zero signs of physical abuse is a nod to the eeeeww factor, in my mind. no politician and no judge is going to vote against the absurdy of some of these laws and chance getting labeled as approving or accepting of animal sex, even if it could be proven the animal solicited said sex. Even if they truly agree that an adult animal was not emotionally harmed.

All of us agree that charging a teen or even an adult for screwing a cow, did not harm the cow in any way physically or emotionally, should not be a felony charge and being forced to register as a sex offender. This is the case that needs a good expensive lawyer to get some precedents set, to force laws to add some sort of definitions, based on actual PHYSICAL harm, or science based mental abuse.
Many of these laws had proof exclusions added on the sole basis, and some admittedly, because they could not prove abuse and simple non abusive animal sex could NOT be prosecuted. Most states have actual abuse laws. That could not be used to charge people for simply having non abusive animal sex. So they had to change the laws so any type of sex with an animal could be bring charges.
The 16 or 18 old farm kid busted for haveing non abusive sex with a cow horse sheep or whatever. Should have plenty of ways to argue that the laws are morality issues and NOT abuse issues. And in these instances the person does not deserve felony charges and sex offender charges to haunt them for the rest of their lives.

 

[caikgoch]

You need to take it one step farther because this is where religion comes in. Remember that they were originally called "sodomy laws". The basis of those laws could be summed up as "You're having too much fun". Same thing here. You can do anything as long as you don't enjoy it.

This is important because its one of the two possible defenses, that these laws are based in religion not logic or fact.

 

[Zoo50]

do you not notice the SEX distinction
Sexual act IS the distinction for the laws

From a moral point of view, the law is inconsistent if it allows artificial insemination but also bans sex with animals. The reason for this is that both involve dealing with animal genitalia. If artificial insemination is allowed, then sex with animals must also be allowed, and if this does not happen (and sex with animals is banned but not artificial insemination), then the law is inconsistent.

 

[gaiden88]

Anti-zoo laws violate due process and equality before the law because preferential treatment is given to some activities involving animal sex organs (such as artificial insemination and spaying/neutering) but not others. The government does not have a legitimate interest in banning all sex with animals.

(1) The due process clause is about the right to heard before having "life, liberty, or property" taken. Irrelevant here.
(2) Equal protection applies when one group of people is treated differently for the same act. Despite all involving genitals, artificial insemination, neutering, and fucking animals are all different activities with different aims. There's no equal protection violation.
(3) As I've explained earlier in the thread, with a few exceptions the government doesn't need to have a legitimate reason for passing a law. Plenty of stupid laws out there that are nonetheless constitutional, blanket bans on zoo sex are no exception.

 

[caikgoch]

(1) The due process clause is about the right to heard before having "life, liberty, or property" taken. Irrelevant here.
(2) Equal protection applies when one group of people is treated differently for the same act. Despite all involving genitals, artificial insemination, neutering, and fucking animals are all different activities with different aims. There's no equal protection violation.
(3) As I've explained earlier in the thread, with a few exceptions the government doesn't need to have a legitimate reason for passing a law. Plenty of stupid laws out there that are nonetheless constitutional, blanket bans on zoo sex are no exception.

There's just one airplane in your ointment. You guys are talking about animals. Animal rights are immaterial. I want my rights. My liberty and property are being taken. I am being treated differently than hetero or homo sexuals.

 

[gaiden88]

My liberty and property are being taken. I am being treated differently than hetero or homo sexuals.

Has everything I posted just completely gone over your head or..?

Hope the lot of you never get into any legal trouble cause your poor lawyer is going to have a hell of a time explaining to y'all basic concepts of Con & Crim law.

 

[arcticwolf69]

From a moral point of view, the law is inconsistent if it allows artificial insemination but also bans sex with animals. The reason for this is that both involve dealing with animal genitalia. If artificial insemination is allowed, then sex with animals must also be allowed, and if this does not happen (and sex with animals is banned but not artificial insemination), then the law is inconsistent.

How is it inconsistent? AI used for breeding purposes has zero to do with sexual pleasures. If you get sexual pleasure from doing such things is irrelevant. Most people do not get sexual pleasure from handling animal genitalia.

 

[Zoo50]

(1) The due process clause is about the right to heard before having "life, liberty, or property" taken. Irrelevant here.
(2) Equal protection applies when one group of people is treated differently for the same act. Despite all involving genitals, artificial insemination, neutering, and fucking animals are all different activities with different aims. There's no equal protection violation.
(3) As I've explained earlier in the thread, with a few exceptions the government doesn't need to have a legitimate reason for passing a law. Plenty of stupid laws out there that are nonetheless constitutional, blanket bans on zoo sex are no exception.

Due process is relevant because when a zoo is caught their animal is taken from them -- animals are technically property, so one's property is being taken. The right to have sex with animals could also be seen as a form of liberty.

When it comes to modifying animal genitalia, sex with animals, artificial insemination and spaying/neutering are the same -- therefore making exceptions for one but not another is wrong.

A government does need a legitimate interest to make a law -- that's why in Warren v. Virginia, they made a point of saying what they believed to be a legitimate interest (even though the interests they named are idiotic and not rational reasons to ban sex with animals).

How is it inconsistent? AI used for breeding purposes has zero to do with sexual pleasures. If you get sexual pleasure from doing such things is irrelevant. Most people do not get sexual pleasure from handling animal genitalia.

The point is, why should sexual pleasure being present (or not present) matter? An animal's genitalia is being modified by sex with animals, artificial insemination, and spaying/neutering -- and from an animal's point-of-view, there is no "morality" attached to one but not the other.

 

[gaiden88]

Due process is relevant because when a zoo is caught their animal is taken from them -- animals are technically property, so one's property is being taken. The right to have sex with animals could also be seen as a form of liberty.

Read carefully this time, because I really don't want to have to explain this all again.
It's not that they the government can't take away your liberty or property, it's that they cannot do it without meeting constitutional due process requirements. If you are found guilty of having sex with your animals, that trial and conviction suffices for due process requirements.

When it comes to modifying animal genitalia, sex with animals, artificial insemination and spaying/neutering are the same -- therefore making exceptions for one but not another is wrong.

I don't even know where to begin with this, sex and castration are completely different acts with different results. This is like saying stabbing someone should be legal since tattoo parlors are legal, absolutely insane argument to make.

A government does need a legitimate interest to make a law -- that's why in Warren v. Virginia, they made a point of saying what they believed to be a legitimate interest

You're misreading. They don't need to have a legitimate interest, laws need a rational basis in legitimate government interests. As I've explained earlier, under this tier of scrutiny laws are found valid 99.9% of the time.

Please, I'm begging you to pick up a college textbook on Constitutional Law and read through it while this quarantine madness is going down. Read it and don't comment again until you understand due process & tiers of scrutiny.

 

[arcticwolf69]

Due process is relevant because when a zoo is caught their animal is taken from them -- animals are technically property, so one's property is being taken.

Wrong. The way the law works>Due process is not relevant in such an issue if an animal is highly suspected of being abused. It is better for the animal to be removed from an abusive situation to prevent further abuse or death.
Do you really want truly abused animals left with people who beat them or starve them until trial decides if it is abuse?
Your property has not been taken, it has been placed into protective custody, a ward of the court.

The right to have sex with animals could also be seen as a form of liberty.

This is just your personal belief. If you lived on your very own personal island you give yourself whatever liberty's you wished until you got caught, then you would be subject to the laws of the nation that claims jurisdiction of said island. Murder someone on said island and get caught you will go to jail for murder. You do not have any and all liberties you wish to believe you have ... you only have the liberties granted to you by your ruling nation.

When it comes to modifying animal genitalia, sex with animals, artificial insemination and spaying/neutering are the same -- therefore making exceptions for one but not another is wrong.

How can you add sex with animals to this list. Sex with animals has ZERO to do with the rest of the accepted practices you list here. Medical procedures, breeding practices, have zero to do with where you shove your dick.

A government does need a legitimate interest to make a law -- that's why in Warren v. Virginia, they made a point of saying what they believed to be a legitimate interest

(even though the interests they named are idiotic and not rational reasons to ban sex with animals)
The government believes they DID have a legitimate reason for such a law or it would not have been in a court room.

(even though the interests they named are idiotic and not rational reasons to ban sex with animals)

According to YOUR beliefs they are not rational. Laws are not based on what you choose to believe or not believe. The majority of the human population thinks these are in fact rational reasons.

The point is, why should sexual pleasure being present (or not present) matter?

It matters to 90% or more of the human population. Your wishing different, does not change this fact.

 

[caikgoch]

Wrong. The way the law works>Due process is not relevant in such an issue if an animal is highly suspected of being abused. It is better for the animal to be removed from an abusive situation to prevent further abuse or death.
Do you really want truly abused animals left with people who beat them or starve them until trial decides if it is abuse?
Your property has not been taken, it has been placed into protective custody, a ward of the court.

Thank you for making your motivation clear. I can now safely disregard all of your supposed legal expertise and file you under "PeTA troll".

 

[arcticwolf69]

Then perhaps where you are the laws are different.
I spent many years working on a large horse farm, on several occasions we were given temporary protective custody of severly neglected horses. Until a court decided if the previous owner was allowed to reacquire them. The way it was explained to me, was that we were only temporary custodians, therefore coould not sell or do anything with them except proper care. We only had protective custody. We had the right to stop the previous owner from attempting to reacquire said horses until the law arrived to stop them. The horses in question were wards of the state in our care. Until a final decision was made by the courts. in one case the owner had been in a lengthy stay in the hospital, and had left their care in the hands of another, who had supposedly been involved in a case of habitual drunk driving and had been incarcerated. The original owner tried to reacquire the horses, claiming they were his property and the law stopped him from doing it. The guy was flat out violent about us not allowing him to take his property. He eventually was allowed custody by the courts almost 6 months later only after proving how they got in the condition in which they had been ceased and proving to the courts he could satisfactory provide proper care and agreeing to repay us for the care we had provided.

 

[Zoo50]

gaiden88 and arcticwolf69: You are both wrong. These anti-zoo laws are unconstitutional and violate due process -- a person who has non-abusive sex with an animal (in the privacy of their home) should not have their freedom and animals taken from them.

 

[gaiden88]

Refer to my previous comment before attempting to waste my time:

Please, I'm begging you to pick up a college textbook on Constitutional Law and read through it while this quarantine madness is going down. Read it and don't comment again until you understand due process & tiers of scrutiny.