About: http://data.cimple.eu/claim-review/a25f96933f2e3191827cc0c226abad342fcf3d9c60fcac1584b4ed79

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: http://data.cimple.eu/claim-review/a25f96933f2e3191827cc0c226abad342fcf3d9c60fcac1584b4ed79 Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ClaimReview, within Data Space : data.cimple.eu associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	schema:ClaimReview
http://data.cimple...lizedReviewRating	not credible
schema:url	http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-oral-sex-still-illegal/
schema:text	Some states still have laws against oral sex on their books. These types of laws are unenforceable due to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling. In late 2017, a picture appeared and quickly spread on social media, listing states where oral sex is purportedly still illegal and punishable in some cases by prison time: The graphic is accurate in that some states still have laws against oral sex on the books, an artifact of anti-sodomy laws that some states rewrote to specifically target LGBTQ residents. However, this graphic neglects to point out that these types of laws are unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared that Texas's anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional. The high court ruled in a 6-3 decision that two gay men, John Geddes Lawrence Jr. and Tyron Garner, should not have been arrested for what police called "deviate sexual conduct." In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said: The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. The Lawrence ruling also struck down anti-sodomy laws around the United States, which included laws prohibiting oral sex. However, according to Camilla Taylor, acting legal director for civil rights group Lambda Legal, the states with such statutes do not have to remove them from legislative records: "Some of those were enacted by constitutional amendment. Some of them were passed by statute. Those state legislatures have never rescinded them. But they're unconstitutional nonetheless, and they cannot be enforced." It's true that the laws exist and are on the books. However, as of 2003, they now only exist as a legal -- and unconstitutional -- curiosity.
schema:mentions	dbpedia:Killing_of_Eric_Garner Saint Lawrence Camilla Stoltenberg The Graphic Federal government of the United States Anthony Kennedy Oral sex Civil and political rights Homosexuality Prostitution LGBT Court Supreme Court of the United States Social media Texas Lambda Legal Anti-LGBT rhetoric Sodomy law Law dbpedia:Lawrence_v._Texas
schema:reviewRating	Mostly False
schema:author	snopescom
schema:datePublished	2017-12-28 (xsd:date)
schema:inLanguage	English
schema:itemReviewed	http://data.cimple.eu/claim/fc574f3de7b4986c6c06518de6d27a9580a5764c2ff0ed63f5b5ccdb

Faceted Search & Find service v1.16.115 as of Oct 09 2023

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3238 as of Jul 16 2024, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-musl), Single-Server Edition (126 GB total memory, 5 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software