Seriously. One of the most amazing features of Florida legislative sessions since 2008 has been the inability of the Republican-dominated House and Senate to pass a law sponsored each year by Democratic Sen. Nan Rich of Weston. The 2011 session may actually be ready to pass a law making bestiality illegal, something it has been unable to do in three previous sessions.
The legislation was proposed after a suspect accidentally strangled a goat named Meg during intercourse. When Sen. Nan Rich heard of the “disgusting” case, she tried to ban sex with animals, but always had trouble in the House.
Knowing that corporate interests are pulling virtually every lever in both legislative chambers, one has to wonder what corporate interests are at stake if bestiality gets outlawed. As shown below, this can become a very complicated issue … if you’re a mindless ideologue.
It may be that because the legislation is sponsored by a Democrat, the measure should not see the light of day. Ah, politics.
Perhaps the bestiality pornography industry has its own lobbyist, or maybe the porky pornos financially support heavyweight legislative quarterbacks Associated Industries or the Florida Chamber of Commerce whose army of lobbyists are working against this legislation.
With an ideology that finds government regulation heinous, perhaps it has been decided that bestiality should not be prohibited. Better to allow bestiality than have government interfering in the private lives of farmers and their cattle. (Related: see anti-farm photography law; maybe this is what Sen. Norman fears photographing….)
There may be property rights issues involved. If Farmer Randy owns sheep, then it is his sheep – mere property, right? How can you prohibit Farmer Randy’s sex romping with his sheep when he has the legal right to kill the sheep and eat it? What could be next – outlawing sex with a fence post?
Incredibly, this property angle makes some logical sense, unless Farmer Randy is really bad in the sack in which case his intercourse could be seen as “animal cruelty.” But who is going to decide about Farmer Randy’s performance? What if Farmer Randy is truly a calamity at sex; does his wife get to claim damages for herself? Surely she should have the legal remedies of a sheep, right? This would be known by the new legal principle “intercourse recourse” … of course. This could have far reaching consequences beyond agriculture.
The legal matter becomes further complicated when an animal expresses its rejection of Farmer Randy’s sexual advances by causing significant injury or Farmer Randy’s death. No longer will the explanation at the ER suffice, “Danged sheep kicked me in the jewels,” or “My husband was trampled to death and the animals kicked his pants off.” With an anti-bestiality law, such instances may require an investigation.
Yes, this is all pretty disgusting as Sen. Rich says. It’s offensive. It’s disgusting. It’s abominable.
However, one would rightly say that penalizing the poor, the sick, the children, the working families, the middle class, the unemployed and the fragile environment we all share, while giving new handouts to corporate interests and protecting those businesses and the wealthy with tax loopholes and exemptions and special favors is just as offensive, disgusting and abominable.
If you’re expecting ethics and values from Republicans in 2011, the anti-bestiality law doesn’t stand a chance … again.
Excuse me while I wretch.