About this Baptist preacher arrested for offering oral sex

[Don Claybrook]

Yeah, it's nice to see another hypocrite go down in flames and hopefully shake the beliefs of his flock of sheep.

That said, why is this illegal? My understanding is that no money was asked/offered for the service. How is this different than, say, propositioning someone at a bar? I realize that laws vary from state to state, and Oklahoma would seem like a state with more draconian laws. Is this illegal in most states? Why is it considered lewd behavior, provided there was a plan to go indoors, to a motel room or whatever?

Thanks for enlightening me on this one.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. I thought he was being arrested for something else

And offered the oral sex in the midst of that.

[Don Claybrook]

3. Admittedly, I haven't followed the story too closely

I read one account of it in one of the major dailies linked here (don't recall which). I didn't know about the offer in the midst of an already-in-progress arrest. That would pretty much wipe out the basis of my question. I'll go find an article on it and see what I can see.

Thanks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. He wasn't being arrested for saying gwb in vain... was he??? nt.

[joeybee12]

2. I can't enlighten you because I have the same questions...

...seems to me that two consenting adults can do what they want, even in Oklahoma, unless the cop was a Nazi and wanted to arrest the guy on some outdated sodomy statute.

[Tom Joad]

4. I don't know the backstory here... but if it were someone who came

into counseling, then there are usually laws against this, and i think there are good reasons for that. sexual come-ons in a therapeutic situation can be harmful, especially for the client, who is usually vulnerable, even if adult.

[DURHAM D]

6. My gay friends in OKC have been trying to figure

this one out for awhile. The ordinance is not about a physical act - it is about a conversation. It was specifically written to catch gay men. I have been told that people in the DA's office are not sure it is a legitimate ordinance but so far no one has really tried to fight it - including a friend of mine who was arrested under this ordinance.

If the preacher fights this charge he will be doing gay men in OK a favor. Oh the irony...

[NMDemDist2]

7. the undercover cop was posing as a male prostitute, so it was sex for

hire which is illegal in any sexual context

[Don Claybrook]

10. I'm not reading about any money changing hands

Most of the news items on this seem pretty slim, so it could go either way. But here's a link from the sbcbaptist press (who would've thought they'd give this coverage?):

"In an area of the city known for male prostitution, Latham allegedly asked a male undercover police officer to go with him to a local hotel for sex."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22401

The article does say that the charge was lewdness, and one would think that a solicitation or prostitution charge would be in order if there was an offer or request for money. I'll look for more sources.

[Ian David]

8. Apparently no money or prostitution was involved. Which means...

that this guy may end up being the test case that gets the law taken off the books.

Unless, of couse, Alito is confirmed.

[MADem]

15. A cop cannot make a bust unless there is a proffer of money for service

Unless the police are playing fast and loose with procedure, or the truth, that's the criteria for arrest for solicitation of prostitution, which I gather was the charge. If it were a simple "lewd and lacivious" charge, then it would be a different scenario.

They could have audio and video surveillance of the event. We will know more as the circumstances unfold, I guess.

On edit--I see, further down, a post explaining the law they used...rather draconian, that!!!

[autorank]

9. Figured it out...

OK, Baptist preacher, busted, right after the New Year.

This is the first shot fired in the non stop war against Christmas! That's right.
:sarcasm:
Why would Faux report it if it were not true. Instead of waiting until November 2006 to start
their full tilt boogie campaign against the commercial holiday of all time, they're now starting
by going after preachers in January. The horror...

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Another assault on the Baby Jesus. n/t

[autorank]

16. Thank GoddoG that there are people like us to fight the evil doers?

:evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

12. Here is the OKC ordinance (city law) used to bust him

http://www.johntv.com/ordinance-lewdness.htm

Not to defend a hypocrite preacher, but this law really does suck.

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. YIKES!

This is a bad law.

[Don Claybrook]

14. Thank you: here's an excerpt from your link:

(a) No person shall, in a public place, with any person, engage in or offer to engage in any act of lewdness, including but not limited to sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation (mutual or solitary), or anal intercourse, or to solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit or engage in any act of lewdness.
(b) This section shall not apply to any conduct wherein money or any other thing of value is exchanged or otherwise involved.
(c) Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of Subsection (a) shall be punished as for a Class "b" offense.

--------------------------------

The way I read this, it's illegal to go into a bar in Oklahoma and say, "hey, want to f--k?". Yes, that's a crass thing to say, but I'd wager many of us have heard language like this thrown around a barroom or other public venue where people are drinking. Apparently you can be arrested in Oklahoma for asking such a question. Someone upthread mentioned that the law was intended as an anti-gay male measure. This makes me wonder if it's even been used to arrest heterosexuals engaging in "lewd" language. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the law has never been used against a straight person.

Thanks for the informative link.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. I must have gotten him mixed up with Fred Phelps

Who, again I think, did get arrested for disrupting a funeral. Yeah, that law does suck. But up until now I suspect our hypocritical closeted-gay minister supported it.

[Ian David]

23. Agreed. Someone should do a "fair practices" check and see...

if the law (which sucks in the first place) is being evenly applied.

Even as written, it is inherrently un-equal in that it treats married people differently from un-married.

I guess we're not supposed to be offended by a man getting a blowjob in public if it's from his wife?

[Ian David]

18. ARTICLE VII. PROSTITUTION, PUBLIC LEWDNESS, ETC.*

ARTICLE VII. PROSTITUTION, PUBLIC LEWDNESS, ETC.*

§ 30-152.1. Public lewdness.
(a) No person shall, in a public place, with any person, engage in or offer to engage in any act of lewdness, including but not limited to sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation (mutual or solitary), or anal intercourse, or to solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit or engage in any act of lewdness.
(b) This section shall not apply to any conduct wherein money or any other thing of value is exchanged or otherwise involved.
(c) Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of Subsection (a) shall be punished as for a Class "b" offense.
(Ord. No. 21042, § 3, 5-5-98; Ord. No. 21324, § 1, 10-5-99; Ord. No. 21845, § 1, 11-6-01)



§ 30-151. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(1) Lewdness means:
a. any lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct,
b. the giving or receiving of the body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, anal intercourse, or lascivious, lustful or licentious conduct with any person not his or her spouse, or
c. any act in furtherance of such conduct or any appointment or engagement for prostitution.

http://www.johntv.com/ordinance-lewdness.htm

A key question is, is the law being applied to "any person" or just to "any gay person"?

And while politely asking someone for oral sex should be protected, I suppose it might cross the line into creating a public nuisance when every day fifty people are gathered in a local part soliciting non-prostitute sex.

It's like when you have one person whispering in a theater versus when the whole audience is whispering at once.

One guy looking for a blowjob versus fifty guys standing around asking for them in the same place.

Even street mimes need permits in some cities, and they don't even speak.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. I think it is a misapplication of their own statute

The entire law, as it relates to speech, i.e "offer to engage in" or "induce" or "entice" is questionable constitutionally at best, but the key to the whole statute is that the "lewd act" take place, or be proposed to take place in a "public place". Performing a "lewd act" as they define it is not a crime unless it is in a public place. I would argue that the only possible way the "offering to engage in" part of the statute would apply would be where the act was proposed to take place in public and whether the offer was made in a public place makes no difference. In other words, if a person in a public place offered to perform a lewd act in a private place there is no underlying crime that could make the offer illegal. It is similar to soliciting a prostitute. Asking for the sex is not the crime, it is only when an agreement to pay for it is made that the crime takes place. Reverend Lovejoy walks.

[salin]

21. language gets real 'loose'

lustful or licentious conduct with any person not his or her spouse,

So is mashing or necking in a bar considered lustful?

[Ian David]

22. "... with any person not his or her spouse..."

Gay people can not get married (at least not in Oklahoma).

That makes the law clearly un-equal.

Not to mention that it treats married people unequally from un-married.

So, the right to smooch in public without being arrested is yet one more right married people enjoy.

And am I supposed to be "less-offended" by a public sex act once I am re-assured that the people involved are married?

[Toots]

19. Lewd conduct is illegal in most states.

Like the one jurist said "I may not be able to define obscenity but I know it if I see it." That is how "Lewd Conduct" is defined as well.

[DefenseLawyer]

24. Those laws may be on the books

but they are unconstitutional. See Lawrence v. Texas. That is why the public aspect of the crime is necessary for it to be an enforceable criminal statute at all.