Despite the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, some jurisdictions are still trying to draw a law enforcement distinction between gay and straight sex.
The following comes from a memo from HQ to police in Charlotte, NC, a jurisdiction that has been more actively prosecuting sodomy cases under the state’s Crime Against Nature law (“If any person shall commit a crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.”):
However, [Lawrence] did not directly address the solicitation of a crime against nature (SOLCAN). For the time being and until a court tells us otherwise, we are of the following opinion: 1.) a SOLCAN charge wherein a subject offers to commit a crime against nature for money in either a private or public place is a valid charge; 2.) a SOLCAN charge wherein the subject offers to commit a crime against nature for no money in public or at an unspecified location is a valid charge; and 3.) a SOLCAN charge wherein the subject offers to commit a crime against nature for no money or consideration at a private place is no longer a valid charge.
We have spoken with the D.A.’s office who has agreed to continue to accept these charges ….
(Emphasis mine.)
Reading between the lines here is interesting. #1 seems straightforward — solicitation of sex for money is a felony — but is solicitation of straight sex is also considered a Class I felony?
#3 reflects the Lawrence case. If a “crime against nature” (under that statute) occurs inside a private residence, it’s not a crime against the law; thus, solicitation of such cannot be considered a felony.
It’s #2 that I find most interesting. Public sex of any kind is presumably illegal in Charlotte. I have to wonder if solicatation of public straight sex is also treated as a Class I felony.
More important, I have to wonder if “straight” solicitation laws include the “at an unspecified location” clause.
In other words, if I lean over to someone I consider cute — let’s say, my wife — and say, “Hey, let’s go have sex,” without specifying where, I seriously doubt that a Charlotte police officer would do anything about it. If I said the same thing to my gay lover, though — would I, since I didn’t specify “… at our private residence,” be charged under #2 for SOLCAN?
(The same applies, of course, and perhaps more commonly, for where someone picks up someone cute at the bar who turns out to be an undercover cop. I suspect a straight propositioner will not be prosecuted for solicitation unless they offer money, or perhaps even explicitly suggest ducking outside into the alleyway; a gay propositioner would seem to be in felonious trouble if s/he did not explicitly specify “Let’s go back to my place” along with the proposition.)
Granted the memo does note that if a judge has a different interpretation, they might have to decide to prosecute these charges differently. But I find it greatly irksome that various folks are trying to maintain “business as usual” in prosecuting gay sex differently from prosecuting straight sex, Lawrence notwithstanding.
Jerks.