Rid N.C. of Homophobic Sodomy Laws

The General Assembly has a fair chance of passing a bill addressing how unmarried couples, usually teenagers, deal with unwanted pregnancies.

Last week, a legislative committee approved a bill decriminalizing infant abandonment.

At first, this seems like a terrible idea that could encourage women to desert their babies.

Actually, that's the point. The bill would allow parents to anonymously leave infants younger than 15 days old with almost any responsible adult.

Currently, someone identified as deserting his child could face up to 20 years in prison, leaving desperate young parents no alternative but to leave the baby somewhere to die.

The bill's rationale is that if parents can turn over their babies without repercussion, the infants' lives may be spared.

Of course, there should be plenty of discussion about preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by encouraging abstinence or responsible use of birth control.

But once the woman is desperately trying to figure out what to do with the child, it's too late for those concerns.

Since 1985, 22 N.C. infants have been reported abandoned, though experts think the numbers are likely much higher.

Other states already have reported multiple lives saved since legislators there decriminalized infant abandonment in recent years.

While parental irresponsibility is not something our legislature should promote, this bill is important because it protects infants' lives.

The General Assembly also should take North Carolina's laws out of the bedroom.

Sen. Ellie Kinnaird is currently sponsoring a bill that would decriminalize oral and anal sex, collectively called sodomy.

North Carolina is one of 13 states with laws restricting private activities for all sexual partners, from homosexuals to straight married couples. Five states have laws targeting only homosexuals.

The US Supreme Court has cited a "right to privacy" to overturn laws prohibiting married and unmarried couples from using birth control.

The court ruled that the government should not restrict sexual behavior within someone's own home.

But in the homophobic Bowers v. Hardwick decision in the late 1980s, the court ruled that Georgia could legislate against homosexual anal sex because the justices deemed it a public health risk.

In the court's opinion, homosexual intercourse was just too likely to spread AIDS.

It's ridiculous.

Heterosexual intercourse spreads AIDS too, but legislators aren't making laws against that.

Such laws result in officials legislating on the morality of acts instead of their legality.

Unfortunately, there's little chance Kinnaird's bill will pass.

The government is still allowed to be actively homophobic, so the crimes against nature law has utility to legislators as a restriction of homosexual rights.

The law provides valuable protection for legislators against bills recognizing homosexual domestic partnerships, since the consummation of that partnership would break the sodomy law.

Both bills show a progressive perspective on the role government should play in citizens' lives.

Legislators should be commended for examining laws already on the books to see whether they are still relevant to society's current needs, but they should put aside their prejudices and make the right decision instead of the political one.

Columnist Anne Fawcett can be reached at fawcetta@hotmail.com.