Hull OKs repeal of 'archaic' sex laws
The laws being repealed
ARS 13-1409: A person who lives in a
state of open and notorious cohabitation or adultery is guilty of
a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Cohabitation ban dates to 1901;
adultery, which is not affected by this legislation, was added in
1913.)
ARS 13-1411: A person who knowingly and
without force commits the infamous crime against nature with an
adult is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Statute adopted in
1901.)
ARS 13-1412: A person who knowingly and
without force commits, in any unnatural manner, any lewd or
lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member thereof
of a male or female adult, with the intent of arousing, appealing
to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desires of either of
such persons, is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Statute
adopted in 1917.)
A class 3 misdemeanor is punishable by a
jail term of up to 30 days and a $500 fine.
|
Unenforced bans on sodomy, cohabitation gone in 90 days
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX - Gov. Jane Hull on Tuesday repealed laws on who can have sex
with whom, and how. Some of the laws were passed in territorial days.
Hull said that it was not the government's concern whether people
were living in "open and notorious cohabitation," one of the laws that
is going away. Nor did she find a compelling reason to keep statutes on
the books which ban not only sodomy but any sexual act not designed to
create a baby.
"People should not interpret my signature on this bill as a signal
that I condone all the conduct that this bill makes lawful," Hull said.
"I don't," she continued, "but I choose not to judge the conduct of
others, even when I know others will judge me for signing this bill."
The laws will come off the books 90 days after the official end of
the legislative session - scheduled for Thursday.
Hull's office has been inundated with calls and e-mail messages since
the legislation went to Hull last week.
Initially the foes of repeal vastly outnumbered supporters. But the
tide turned in the last two days.
Francie Noyes, the governor's press aide, said there were about 1,000
messages on Monday, with three-fourths favoring repeal. By Tuesday the
figure hit 1,200, with 90 percent urging her to sign the repealer.
Hull said she listened to various points of view.
"At the end of the day, I returned to one of my most basic beliefs
about government - it does not belong in our private lives," Hull said.
Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley, one of the foes of repeal,
acknowledged the laws are not enforced and may even be unenforceable.
Still, he argued, repealing the statutes is a mistake.
"Quite frankly, this country was founded on moral principles," he
said. "It was as much the message as anything."
Hull didn't buy that contention.
"Keeping archaic laws on the books does not promote high moral
standards," she said. "Instead it teaches the lesson that laws are made
to be broken."
Beyond that, Hull continued, moral standards are set by families and
religious and community leaders, not the state.
"We learn much more from watching their behavior than from any
written laws or rules," she said.
A subtext of the debate was the question of cost.
The Internal Revenue Service allows an individual to claim someone
else with whom he or she lives as a deduction if the taxpayer provides
more than half of the support. But the IRS rules - which the state
follows - preclude that option if the couple is living in violation of
state laws.
Based on that, legislative budget staffers concluded the state would
lose about $500,000 in income taxes. There also were fears voiced by the
state Department of Administration that changing the law would force the
state to begin providing insurance benefits to the domestic partners of
its unmarried workers, further driving up costs at a cost in excess of
$1 million.
Rep. Steve May, R-Phoenix, sponsor of the bill, said the first
argument is bogus because it presumes that these couples are not already
taking that deduction.
As to the second, May said last week that repealing the laws is a
separate issue from domestic partner benefits. But he said that if the
Department of Administration wants to stand behind that argument,
"that's fine by me."
Noyes said Hull, who has vetoed smaller spending bills, is concerned
about potential cost issues. She noted, though, the governor has signed
other bills with a fiscal impact, such as $2.7 million for treatment of
breast and cervical cancer, and decides on each measure on its merits.
Cathi Herrod, lobbyist for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the
governor ignored the will of the people. Herrod, whose group describes
itself as "pro family," said Hull's action shows "the media campaign of
misinformation was successful."
Graf was one of only two Southern Arizona lawmakers who opposed
repeal. The other was Sen. Tim Bee, R-Tucson.
Read Gov. Hull's Letter
why she sign bill to repeal law.
OR
Return to TBC GLBT News
Headlines
