[Gail White]

Yes, I was delighted with the last two Supreme Court decisions. But then they owed us a couple, after that Citizens United business.

(Another thing that will make you feel good is watching Pres. Obama singing "Amazing Grace.")

[ross hamilton hill]

Sorry Roger as Matt said I got you confused with him.

When I was in my 20's the bohemian scene and the gay scene intersected since Sydney had such a small population and few places where such people could feel accepted. I met lots of gay couples who lived together ( it was still illegal then and gays were often bashed and murdered). Some were faithful to each other, others were very promiscuous. I saw a lot of people die of AIDS, including women, that colours my view on things.

I did look up gay sexual intercourse, don't know what you mean, there's oral sex, rubbing penises together (frottage) and anal sex. By sexual intercourse I mean, penis and vagina getting snugly involved. It's been a while but I think that's still how it's done.

[John Whitworth]

No law against buggery here that I know of. Just as well too. Ross is right to enumerate the ways gays can have sex The noted celebrity, Stephen Fry, is on record as saying he practises everything except the big B. And Oscar Wilde was prosecuted because of the age of the boys (fourteen) rather than because of the act. Even then, since the boys were lower class, he was given every opportunity to go the France where all manner of sexual practises were commonplace.

[ross hamilton hill]

John in the UK it was incorporated into the 'offences againt the person act' in 1861, but it still remained as it was before and was still called buggery, I assume it was designed to prosecute anal rape or under age anal sex, the penalty was 10 years to life.
This remained until 1967 and homosexuals could be prosecuted for it, I can't find out what the difference was between consensual anal sex and non-consensual, the wording doesn't differentiate. Also of course it could apply equally to anal sex with women, although the wording does not mention women. It's a bit vague, although probably that's because it's on the net, the actual legistlation may go into the details.

[John Whitworth]

Did anyone actually get ten years to life for buggery between 1861 and 1960 whenever it was, Ross?

[ross hamilton hill]

I've no idea John, nor do I care, I think we have got sidetracked and you are adept at encouraging that.

[Michael F]

Matt, I positively adore the haikus. Great fun.

And yes, the last one is, well ... lovely.

[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by Michael Ferris

I'm proud to read the headlines in the paper. I'm referring, of course, to the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. I've thought for many years that marriage equality was inevitable, but I didn't expect it this fast.

I must say, it's a nice feeling.

That's where this thread started. Thank you, Michael.

I am hoping that the nuttier Scalia becomes, the more vituperative in his reactions to anybody who disagrees with him, the more he might push Kennedy and Roberts leftward, just to avoid being tangled in that Scalia/Thomas/Alioto pit of rancor. The recent decisions give the tiniest flicker of hope. It would be nice to see it continue.

[Michael F]

Michael, thank you for your kind words.

To bring it to a close (for me at least), and with a nod to my friend John Whitworth, I’ll invoke Auden, as seems appropriate: it feels good, it is a pleasure, to show an affirming flame.

[John Whitworth]

Thank you, Michael. We are all, as too many people say too often, on the same page.