The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional based on invasion of privacy invalidates a Michigan sodomy law, but the legitimacy of the state's gross indecency law remains unclear to experts and advocates.
Two bills were introduced Tuesday by State Rep. Leon Drolet, R-Clinton Township, that would repeal portions of an anti-sodomy law along with the 15-year penalty associated with the law.
Drolet said because of the Supreme Court decision, the law is invalidated and needs to be stricken off the record.
"It seems illogical to keep a bunch of unenforceable laws on the books," he said. "We have to fight to keep the government out of our private lives."
The law bans "the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal." The proposal would repeal all the anti-sodomy wording while still maintaining the portion of the law that prohibits acts of bestiality.
The bills sit on the House Government Operations Committee.
Another bill was introduced in May by State Rep. Steve Tobocman, D-Detroit, that would repeal Michigan's gross indecency laws. The law regulates sexual acts in public and private settings.
Tobocman said he's not sure if the recent high court decision invalidates the Michigan law.
"That is something that needs to be determined by the courts," Tobocman said. "It's really unclear on what 'gross indecency' means. The law is unconstitutional because it is vague."
Tobocman added that along with its ambiguous nature, the law discriminates against members of the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community.
"The only people who are really charged with this law are homosexuals that engage in activities," he said.
Tobocman said Michigan already has laws that protect against public indecency, such as criminal sexual conduct and indecent exposure laws.
Frank Ravitch, a law professor at MSU-DCL College of Law, said portions of the law are unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court ruling.
"To the extent that the law applies to private law, it is unconstitutional," Ravitch said.
He added the portions of the law that distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual behavior also might be considered unconstitutional, but the portion of the law which regulates public acts is still valid.
Ravitch said repealing the law is a good move.
But other activists don't think the Texas v. Lawrence decision extends to the state's indecency laws.
"The Supreme Court decision has no outcome in the gross indecency law," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, based in Midland. "The law has to do with sex in public and forced sex."
Glenn labels Tobocman's legislation as irresponsible because it encourages indecent public homosexual behavior.
"Homosexual activists actually promote and enable homosexual acts in public places frequented by families and children, such as city parks and public restrooms," Glenn said.
Rudy Serra, a lawyer for the Triangle Foundation, said the Supreme Court ruling invalidates both the sodomy law and the gross indecency law.
The foundation is a Detroit-based advocacy group that seeks LBGT friendly legislation. Serra said both laws descended from British common law and have been around since the mid-19th century. He said that the gross indecency law is enforced a lot more than the sodomy law.
He added even with the Supreme Court decision, the fight for equality will never stop.
"There will be a battle no matter what," Serra said. "Just because the Supreme Court says something, doesn't mean the opposition stops."
Antonio Planas can be reached at planasan@msu.edu.
