A man caught having sex with a miniature female donkey (at least it was female!), is arguing that he has a constitutional right to, er, drive the herd any way he wants. He is in effect arguing that if the law says he can’t roger a donkey, then the law is an ass — which is ironic, since if the law were an ass, he might want to have sex with it too. From the article:
“By making sexual conduct with an animal a crime, the statute demeans individuals like Defendant (Romero) by making his private sexual conduct a crime,” the attorneys wrote.
As another possible reason for unconstitutionality, the attorneys add that the statute doesn’t require that the state prove any harm or injury to the animal “or any proof of the sexual activity being non-consensual.”
“Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting,’?” they wrote.
Using religion or the overall consensus of the public that sexual activity with an animal is wrong as the basis of a law is unjustified and bars Romero’s personal liberties, the attorneys argued.
“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties,” the attorneys wrote. “If the statute were to require sexual conduct with animals to be nonconsensual or to cause injury in order to be a crime, then perhaps the State would have a rational basis and legitimate state interest in enforcement.”
I particularly like the bit about the state needing to prove it was non-consensual. Apparently, the defendant thinks some donkeys are just asking for it. I wonder if he said to the cops: “Did you see the saddle that donkey was wearing? She knew what she was doing.”