Bring It On!

This is just…eew!

February 28th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |
Ronald E. Kuch “is accused of sexual contact with the carcass of his girlfriend’s dog on Oct. 20, about a week after the animal had been hit by a car.

As I said…eew!

Kuch’s defense? Novel, if you ask me:

Kuch’s defense attorney, Kathryn Fehrman, argued that Michigan’s statute on sodomy and bestiality is vague and does not outlaw sex with a dead dog.

Um…okay. Does anybody here consider sodomizing a dead dog to be a valid lifestyle choice?

It gets better:

Fehrman had said in previous written and oral arguments that a dead dog is not an animal and therefore cannot be violated against its will.

Does anyone seriously think that a live dog is capable of consenting to by sodomized by a human being? Is the dog’s consent really the point here?

[The judge] said the purpose of the sodomy law is not to protect a specific victim, necessarily, but ”to prevent people from debasing and dehumanizing themselves.” Such laws also protect society, Sheeran said, and ”prevents people from acting like animals themselves.”

Thank you judge Sheeran.

Update: Here’s an earlier report that provides some information not in the report linked above.

  1. 8 Responses to “This is just…eew!”

  2. By Paul Watson on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    Craig,

    I disagree. I’m not really sure “Eew” covers it. The sound of one man throwing up repeatedly might just do it. I apologise for that image, but compared to the images from the story (damn you imagination), that’s pretty mild.

  3. By Ann on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    I don’t know how to submit a blank post, but that’s how I feel, utterly speechless.

    (and, you’re right Paul, “Eew” doesn’t even come close)

  4. By tos on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    No comment.

  5. By Charlie on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    I will not comment on the case in general, but if the sodomy law is to prevent people from behaving like animals then is the law saying that homosexuality is natural?

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    Charlie,

    I do not know the details of this statute with regard to homosexuality. It was my understanding that sodomy laws were overturned years ago by the Supreme Court, at least as a means to criminalize same-sex intimate acts so I’m not even sure that this particular law says anything at all about homosexuality.

    I do think that “behaving like animals”, in this context, is strictly metaphorical since I’m not aware of any animals that attempt to mate with dead animals of another species. “Animals”, in this context, means human beings that do thoroughly repugnant things to someone’s dead pet. I wouldn’t read any more into it than that. 

  7. By Dusty on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply

    “valid lifestyle choice?”…um NO. But it is sick and depraved. It surely is immoral, but it is illegal?

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply

    Well, I don’t think it falls into the category of “ordered liberty” such that it is protected under the 14th amendment. Clearly this man needs help and even if the correct sentence is “court ordered psychiatric care”, the states ought to be able to outlaw this behavior. What else might a man who would sodomize a dead dog do?

    Also, this is what courts do all the time…fill in gaps in statutes that the lawmakers did not foresee. This may get overturned on appeal but I doubt it…I hope not.

  9. By sumo on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply

    Any way you slice it…it’s yucky!  The man must like some stink when he has sex…just sayin’…

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel