Texas Penal Code,  Chapter 21:

§ 21.01. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) “Deviate sexual intercourse” means:

(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.

(2) “Sexual contact” means, except as provided by Section 21.11, any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

(3) “Sexual intercourse” means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, § 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 203, ch. 96, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 739, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Deviate.  Sexual.  Intercourse.  The very phrase drips with moral opprobrium.  I thought it would be informative to see exactly what the Texas statute said, and I find this very interesting.  I think this is a case where they just weren’t devious enough for their own good.  While the law prohibits anal and oral sex between two men or two women (and also appears to prohibit the use of dildos or other “objects”), I think there just might be a little loophole in the law.  I don’t think they classify the human hand as an object, so it would seem that it wouldn’t prohibit fisting.  I hope that someone, somewhere pointed this out to the bill’s author so that he died of shock at the thought…

Anyway, that wasn’t what I really set out to write about.  The old “Morality can’t be legislated” saying came up in the comments to this post at The Bitch Girls.  One poster thought it was dumb “bumper-sticker philosophy”.  I think the commenter misses the point, or at least misses the way I’ve always interpreted it.  To me, it simply means that any law that attempts to legislate something on moral grounds will fail.  I was amused several years ago by a television interview with some politician whose response to this was, “Just watch me.”  He obviously didn’t get it.

As we’ve seen with morally-based laws on sodomy, alcohol (prohibition, anyone?), drugs (history repeats itself with tragic consequences), prostitution, or just about any other victimless crime, a large number of people will simply ignore the law.  Why?  To these people these aren’t areas where the state has any business if their actions don’t have a direct, non-consensual effect on other people.  In a way, this is an intuitive natural rights view (at least from my viewpoint).  Some people try to argue that if we don’t enshrine moral judgements into the law then we’ll have to rip the murder and rape statutes from the books.  However, if one starts from a natural rights foundation of the person as self-owner, one can build a case for laws against murder and rape (and a whole host of other acts).  I understand that some people dispute the natural rights concept, but that leaves them with the nasty dilemma of trying to decide whose morals to use.  And what if the democratic majority’s morals say it’s OK to do something horrific (like killing homosexuals)?  This is why I think there are areas that are not subject to legislation or intrusion by the state and that there must be limits to what the state tries to do (i.e. any area where acts between consensual adults take place that do not harm any nonconsenting party should be out of bounds for the state).

Of course, I’m a bit radical in my thoughts on this matter.  And I fully understand that my beliefs would open the door to removal of laws against bigamy and prostitution and a whole bunch of other stuff.  But these things don’t scare me like they seem to do the moralists who would like to control us every minute of our lives.  Some days I’m not sure who’s worse, the moralists or the socialists.  Both of them want to control us; they only differ slightly on the areas they would interfere in (and it won’t be long until they’ve converged).