California joined Indiana and Washington in providing a law to force the sterilization of mentally retarded persons.
A growing movement at the time, this is universally regarded as a horror now, but largely because the Nazis would adopt a policy to murder people in the same category, revealing such actions for what they are.
Stockton, California, April 26, 1909.
Transgender surgeries, particularly of minors, has been rightly compared to it, and will be regarded in the same fashion in the future.
Nogales, Arizona, April 26, 1909.
The Hungarian cabinet resigned in protest of the Austro-Hungarian Viennese government's lack of support for universal suffrage for Hungarians, use of Magyar in Army regiments, and Hungarian bank independence.
Harrison County, Texas, Deputy Sheriff Lewis Markham Huffman, age 27, was shot and killed investigating a railroad camp disturbance. His partner was shot but survived.The offender was lynched.
Utah's house has passed a bill to ban public transgender bathrooms.
January 25, 2024
Ohio
Ohio's legislature over road a veto and banned gender mutilation of minors and restricted those who have undergone gender mutilation from participating in athletic teams of the opposite gender.
January 31, 2024
New York
New York expanded the definition of rape, which apparently was narrowly defined by the previous law. The new law states:
Section 1. Sections 130.40, 130.45 and 130.50 of the penal law are
REPEALED.
§ 2. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 130.00 of the penal law, subdivision 2 as amended by chapter 264 of the laws of 2003, are amended read as follows:
1. "[Sexual intercourse] VAGINAL SEXUAL CONTACT" [has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight] MEANS CONDUCT BETWEEN PERSONS CONSISTING OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE PENIS AND THE VAGINA OR VULVA.
2. (a) "Oral sexual [conduct] CONTACT" means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the anus, or the mouth and the vulva or vagina.
(b) "Anal sexual [conduct] CONTACT" means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and anus.
§ 3. Section 130.25 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 1 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:
§ 130.25 Rape in the third degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:
1. He or she engages in [sexual intercourse] VAGINAL SEXUAL CONTACT with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old;
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have made it a crime for noncitizens to enter the state through Mexico at any location other than a port of entry
New Hampshire
The state has banned men mutilated to appear as women from appearing in women's sports.
March 22, 2024
Arizona
Arizona had declared Pluto as the official state planet.
March 31, 2024.
Oregon
Oregon recriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs after botching a decriminalization effort.
April 2, 2024.
Colorado
A bill in Colorado that aims to protect the data found in a person's brainwaves was signed into law.
Colorado's Democratic House passed a bill that bans a wide variety of "assault" firearms.
Inaccurately reported on as banning semi-automatic firearms, which it does not, it does take on a lot of popular longarms with military type features.
It's doubtful that it will pass Colorado's Senate, and if it does, it's likely unconstitutional.
April 18, 2024.
Two genitals mutilated men have filed suit in Montana over a new Montana law that keeps them from having their actual gender changed on government issued identification.
That post isn't limited to the left or the right, although right now, invectives are coming more loudly from the Populist right. They do come from the Progressive left as well.
I note that, as people may misinterpret the post below as being solely aimed at Populists. Indeed, Populists are likely to look at it that way, as they tend to be very shallow in their political analysis. All their opponents are members of "the Radical Left", they believe. Even Conservatives who oppose them are members of the "Radical Left".
Not hardly.
The actual Radical Left is in the news today through its capture of much of the Democratic Party, which started before the Populists became as influential as they currently are in the GOP. Indeed, as we discussed last week, the Progressives, which are not the same as the Liberals, have roots in the Democratic Party that go back at least as far as the collapse of the Progressive Party in 1912-1914.
I've often said here that Democrats don't lose elections, they throw them away.
When future historians go back and find the point at which Conservatives who were teetering on the edge of supporting Joe Biden determined to reluctantly give their votes to Donald Trump, they'll cite the issuance of this proclamation:
A Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility, 2024
On Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives.
I am proud that my Administration has stood for justice from the start, working to ensure that the LGBTQI+ community can live openly, in safety, with dignity and respect. I am proud to have appointed transgender leaders to my Administration and to have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving openly in our military. I am proud to have signed historic Executive Orders that strengthen civil rights protections in housing, employment, health care, education, the justice system, and more. I am proud to have signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring that every American can marry the person they love.
Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation. Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive. They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves. But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children. These bills attack our most basic American values: the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to make your own health care decisions, and even the right to raise your own child. It is no surprise that the bullying and discrimination that transgender Americans face is worsening our Nation’s mental health crisis, leading half of transgender youth to consider suicide in the past year. At the same time, an epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color, continues to take too many lives. Let me be clear: All of these attacks are un-American and must end. No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.
At the same time, my Administration is working to stop the bullying and harassment of transgender children and their families. The Department of Justice has taken action to push back against extreme and un-American State laws targeting transgender youth and their families and the Department of Justice is partnering with law enforcement and community groups to combat hate and violence. My Administration is also providing dedicated emergency mental health support through our nationwide suicide and crisis lifeline — any LGBTQI+ young person in need can call “988” and press “3” to speak with a counselor trained to support them. We are making public services more accessible for transgender Americans, including with more inclusive passports and easier access to Social Security benefits. There is much more to do. I continue to call on the Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify civil rights protections for all LGBTQI+ Americans.
Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans: You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility. I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
Defenders of this will no doubt state that Joe is just honoring the "right to be yourself". Maybe he thinks of it that way. Indeed, the statement is sufficiently bland enought to nearly be calculated to attempt not to really offend.
This isn't how many will take it. Many will take it as "you are forcing me to accept a radical fraud about yourself and pretend it's okay".
And frankly, they're right. Words actually do have meaning, and not only the spoken ones, but what they suggest.
In reality, Homo sapiens are a community animal with a fixed nature, and you can't.
I'd normally be reluctant to cite Jordan Peterson, the right wing Canadian pundit, but he is a psychologist and he and a reporter have an interesting podcast episode entitled The Biggest Medical Scandal Of Our Time. I'm not going to link it in, people can simply look it up, but it does a good job of pointing out the degree to which the entire transgender thing is simply a fraud. Peterson spends much of the podcast being outraged, as he's a very poor interviewer, but what you'd basically learn is that in the extraordinary rare instances in which gender confusion arises, it's confusion and nothing else. The basic proper course for minors is not to treat it, with most who are generally afflicted, according to Peterson, coming into adulthood comfortable with their genders, but being homosexuals.
I'm no doubt more radical yet, as I don't believe that transgenderism actually even exists, but is rather a psychological affliction that is limited to the Western world and expresses something else going on in our culture. It's deeply contrary to nature, as much of our society is in general. It's a reaction to some sort of unnatural stress, not an expression of nature.
There's utterly no reason whatsoever for the Federal Government to recognize transgenderism and the fact that it does, and that it's even crept into surgeries being allowed within the Armed Forces, is in fact evidence of how deeply woke some elements of our society have become. There's no reason to oppress people who express this, but going the next 100 miles and pretending everything about it is okay about it is frankly going a bridge too far, and most people instinctively know this.
People have become used to various months being declared to represent the history of one group of people or another. Originally, it was a few definable groups who deserved to have their history brought forward. Black History Month was a good example. March is National Women's History Month, which was as well.
November has become Transgender Awareness Month according to some, or there's a month in November that's been declared Transgender Awareness Week. Now we're all learning that March 31, the last day of National Women's History Month, is Transgender Day of Visibility.
Some time ago I heard a podcast by somebody, I can't recall who, who discussed how transgender mutilation of men into women goes an extra level in being an existential insult to women. That it's a fraud is self-evident. You cannot change your gender, you can only surgically and chemically attempt to partially mask your actual gender.
But what hadn't occured to me is that actual women go through, due to their natures, something that men can barely understand. To experience in your youthful prime an event in which your young healthy body suddenly starts bleeding monthly and your hormonal system subjects you to a raging hormonal cyclonic storm is something men do not experience and cannot grasp. To take pills and subject yourself to surgical butchery doesn't mimic that in any fashion. Women's entire bodies, after a certain point in their teens, remind them of our species elemental genetic roles. Boys have things turn on, but not in a way that can result in them bearing another human being, and in fact monthly demanding that they do so.
To have the Oval Office recognize something that, at this point, is basically hurled in everyone's face, and which all humans know at an elemental level to be existentially wrong, is insulting.
Do declare it on Easter Sunday is an insult beyond that.
That Biden did this is tone-deaf beyond belief. His defenders are pointing out that this day is "always Transgender Day of Visibility", which is absurd on its face, as it hasn't "always" existed. It's new, and it's misdirected. Noting those who fall into this self-declared group is worthwhile, but to sympathize with their plight and seek to address it honestly, rather than to verify that their condition is a dandy one. But this is what we do now since the Progressive Left has become so inserted in our society. We honor the afflicted in their affliction rather than seek to help.
Recently, an insulting event occured at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, in which a funeral that openly insulted conservative beliefs in general and the beliefs of the Catholic Church occured. The tone-deaf appearance by those whose duty it is to protect the beliefs of the Church were widely discussed on the Catholic Blogosphere. This, however, is wider yet.
So, with Joe Biden, who supposedly is an adherent Catholic (which based on his public positions, he obviously is not), having signed a proclamation that places a day honoring something that repels conservatives and enrages Populists, and which actually does offer insult to Christian tenants in general, and which places the honoring on Easter Sunday in an election year, he's sealed his doom in the Fall. Those defending him that this "always" occurs on this day are essentially noting that Joe was too distracted to take note, which only fuels the fire that he doesn't know what he is doing. Never mind that Trump either doesn't know what he is doing either, his adherents already know that the Führerprinzip means he'll follow their lead, as it gets him attention. And indeed, they are already.
And this points out once again the tragedy of a moronic "two party system". There's no reason that real conservatives, or real liberals, should have to vote for these two fallen parties and their ancient, unappealing candidates.
Indeed, there's a good argument that thinking people shouldn't.
Having now listened to it, Governor Gordon's State of the State, it was clearly disappointing. I can't strongly recall Governor Gordon's prior State of the State speeches, but this was clearly in the category of "red meat" for an intended audience.
The speech pitched to the far right and was full of Wyoming v. The Biden Administration invective, promising lawsuits against the Federal Government and the like, and promising that Wyoming's fossil fuel industry would be relevant in its current form forever. Gordon only hinted on industry changes being necessary for its survival, but otherwise declared that people have to depend on us whether they like it or not. Gordon knows better, so it was truly a political speech.
Interestingly, it's drawn criticism from some on the far right for being hypocritical. And there's some merit to that claim. Gordon has been under fire from the far right for his Carbon Neutrality discussions recently, and rather cynically tried to recast his statements.
"State of the _________" speeches are, quite frankly, approaching the worthless point, if in fact they did not do so sometime ago, as those delivering them just won't be honest in them. Everyone would be stunned if a President gave one that said something like "ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to report the State of the Union is imperiled, and It's because you either won't tell the truth or don't know what it is" or "I'm Gov. Jones, and oh boy, there are a bunch of problems here to solve".
The budget information was, however, interesting.
The Senate voted 17-14 to reinstate Sen. Dave Kinskey, R-Sheridan, as chairman of the Legislature’s most powerful committee after President Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, unilaterally stripped Kinskey of the position last April. This removed Sen. Tara Nethercott who had been chosen to replace Kinskey.
House Bill 63 outlawing child sex change (mutilation) surgeries failed to secure enough votes for introduction because, oddly, the Freedom Caucus opposed it for not going far enough and House Democrats opposed it for going too far, thereby giving an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
February 21, 2024.
House Bill 203, paased the House Revenue Committee. The Bill exempts $200,000 of the fair market value of the assessment of single-family residential properties for this current tax year and $1,000,000 of fair market thereafter in exchange for an additional 2% sales tax.
I have mixed ffeelings about this bill, and I'm mostly mixed against it. Wyomingites fail to appreciate how much they actually depend on tax revenues simply for local governments to function and also are in the odd situation of not equating a host of things that encourage property value inflation with things they don't like. Basically, a lot of Wyomingites would like the state to remain what it was in some priro decade (and I confess I hold those views) while also having booming local economies and the like. Things have to give somewhere, and where they've been giving is in inflating property values. Removing $1M in valuation in this fashion will actually encourage that, and bring about additional problems.
Most people will like the bill, however, until they pay the sales tax, and then they'll be made about that.
The legislature really hit the op eds this morning.
A bill mandating power plants to carbon capture, which is thought of as a way to save coal fire plants and hence coal, was criticized by an engineer as unworkable in the Trib.
Whether its unworkable or not, as a technology, it's likely not cost productive, although I'm not an engineer and can't venture a qualified opinion.
The Freedom Caucus criticized Governor Gordon's budget as unworkable and unsustainable.
Generally, the far populist right is hostile to government in general, and a favorite concept of it has been to "starve" the government to death. That's been tried repeatedly at the Federal level, where it's been forgotten that the Government can just borrow money, mostly from the Chinese, so it still dines out, just on The Bank of the Public Credit Card. At the local level, however, it can't do that.
Frankly, I've never seen a Wyoming budget that I regarded as containing much fat, so I'm skeptical that this is a big budget. One item, a raise in government employees salaries, is definitely not unwise spending. The state's employees are under compensated, and sometimes I wonder how they even get by. Basically all this budget does is to try to catch up, which it doesn't, but at least it does something.
The list of things specifically complaints of is interesting. Other than an increase in salaries, they are, and we quote:
"$21.8 million for a new gun/firing range.
$10 million in ‘contingency.’
$38 million for “affordable housing.”
$7.5 million to build a new helibase."
I'm not keen on a couple of these things. The "gun/firing range" is the range at the Law Enforcement Academy. It needs to be rebuilt. I'm for that.
But to call it a "gun/firing range" is revealing.
I've noted before the FC is mostly made up of imports from out of state. Nobody familiar with firearms calls a shooting range a "gun/firing range".
$10,000,000 for contingency seems like a pretty good idea to me.
The money for affordable housing does not, but again probably not for the reasons that the FC views it. Rather, Wyoming has long catered to a weird concept that we can boost industry, bring in people, while keeping everything, including the population size, the same. That's obviously impossible.
Housing follows demand, and this is a byproduct of what we asked for. If we don't like getting what we asked for, we ought to modify that. Government funded housing probably isn't the answer to that.
$7,500,000 is to update the helibase for fighting wildland fires, of which we've been getting a lot.
I'm for that.
Something final to note.
The budget is bigger because of inflation.
Inflation was caused by a global pandemic followed by Donald Trump's political paramour Vlad Putin invading Ukraine.
Things cost more than they used to. A budget needs to reflect that.
Regarding a bill to defund UW's Gender Studies and Diversity Office, Sen. Charles Scott stated:
This kind of program was the principal agent of introducing that rot, introducing a faculty that is without diversity of opinion, that is a monolith of wokeness. We’re seeing this rot affect the University of Wyoming.
He also stated that he's discouraging people from attending UW.
February 23, 2024
Chloe's Bill, which was one of two bills seeking to prohibit underage gender mutilation last general session, has cleared committee in this session. It provides:
AN ACT relating to public health and safety; prohibiting physicians from performing procedures for children related to gender transitioning and gender reassignment; providing an exception; providing that gender transitioning and reassignment procedures are grounds for suspension or revocation of a physician's or health care provider's license; providing definitions; specifying applicability; requiring rulemaking; and providing for effective dates.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 35‑4‑1001 is created to read:
ARTICLE 10
GENDER‑RELATED PROCEDURES
35‑4‑1001. Gender transitioning and reassignment procedures for children prohibited.
(a) As used in this section:
(i) "Child" means a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age;
(ii) "Health care provider" means a person other than a physician who is licensed, certified or otherwise authorized by Wyoming law to provide or render health care or to dispense or prescribe a prescription drug in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession;
(iii) "Physician" means any person licensed to practice medicine in this state by the state board of medicine under the Medical Practice Act.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section and for purposes of transitioning a child's biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes and endogenous profiles of the child or affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex, no physician or health care provider shall:
(i) Perform a surgery that sterilizes the child, including castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, penectomy, phalloplasty and vaginoplasty;
(ii) Perform a mastectomy;
(iii) Provide, administer, prescribe or dispense any of the following prescription drugs that induce transient or permanent infertility:
(A) Puberty suppression or blocking prescription drugs to stop or delay normal puberty;
(B) Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females;
(C) Supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males.
(iv) Remove any otherwise healthy or nondiseased body part or tissue.
(c) This section shall not apply to:
(i) Procedures or treatments that are performed with the consent of the child's parent or guardian and are for a child who is born with a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development, including 46, XX chromosomes with virilization, 46, XY with undervirilization or both ovarian and testicular tissue;
(ii) Any procedure or treatment that is performed with the consent of the child's parent or guardian and is for a child with medically verifiable central precocious puberty.
Section 2. W.S. 33‑21‑146(a)(xi), (xii) and by creating a new paragraph (xiii), 33‑24‑122(a)(intro), (ix) and by creating a new paragraph (xi) and 33‑26‑402(a) by creating a new paragraph (xxxvi) are amended to read:
33‑21‑146. Disciplining licensees and certificate holders; grounds.
(a) The board of nursing may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or revoke the license, certificate or temporary permit of any person, or to otherwise discipline a licensee or certificate holder, upon proof that the person:
(xi) Has failed to submit to a mental, physical or medical competency examination following a proper request by the board made pursuant to board rules and regulations and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act; or
(xii) Has violated a previously entered board order;. or
(xiii) Has violated W.S. 35‑4‑1001.
33‑24‑122. Revocation or suspension of license and registration; letter of admonition; summary suspension; administrative penalties; probation; grounds.
(a) The license and registration of any pharmacist may be revoked or suspended by the board of pharmacy or the board may issue a letter of admonition, refuse to issue or renew any license or require successful completion of a rehabilitation program or issue a summary suspension for any one (1) or more of the following causes:
(ix) For senility or mental impairment which impedes the pharmacist's professional abilities or for habitual personal use of morphine, cocaine or other habit forming drugs or alcohol; or
(xi) For violating W.S. 35‑4‑1001.
33‑26‑402. Grounds for suspension; revocation; restriction; imposition of conditions; refusal to renew or other disciplinary action.
(a) The board may refuse to renew, and may revoke, suspend or restrict a license or take other disciplinary action, including the imposition of conditions or restrictions upon a license on one (1) or more of the following grounds:
(xxxvi) Violating W.S. 35‑4‑1001.
Section 3. W.S. 35‑4‑1001, as created by section 1 of this act, shall apply only to conduct or procedures occurring on and after the effective date of this act.
Section 4. The department of health, state board of medicine and state board of pharmacy shall promulgate all rules necessary to implement this act.
Section 5.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this act is effective July 1, 2024.
(b) Sections 4 and 5 of this act are effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution.
Chloe Cole, whom the bill is named after and who was a victim of the barbarity of gender mutilation in the name of "transgenderism" spoke in favor of the bill.
The Senate and the House are $900,000,000 apart in their respective budget bills, which is not a good sign at all, Part of that is due to the rise of the populist right in the House, which is hostile to government. An op ed earlier this week by Freedom Caucus members complained about the budget.
The higher number frankly seems reasonable to me. Raises of state employee salaries are certainly merited. Some government infrastructure, such as a heliport for fire fighting, fits into the category of things we'll regret later if not funded, probably after this episode in populism is over, which there are early signs may be coming.
Most but not all of the really populist bills have bitten the dust, showing that in spite of big predictions going into this session, the populist don't have enough pull to really get their agenda considered. There are some exceptions, but those exceptions pretty much uniformly feature broad support and can't, therefore, be considered solely populist.
An example of that is Chloe's Law, which was introduced last session and is back. Of interest there, its being advanced by Anthony Bouchard, who was an extremely controversial member of the legislature at one time but no longer seem to be. Moreover, he doesn't seem to be a member of the populist far right group in the legislature. Interesting, he was one of the very first ones, but during his race for the House he seems to have cut loose from them.
The bill to go from property taxes for local funds to a sales tax advanced, but barely. In its first reading, it passed by a mere two votes.
Given that, my prediction is that it'll go down in defeat.
Politic were being played with the pristine Kelly Parcel in Teton County, with a bill being introduced to hold it hostage if the BLM doesn't bend its knee on the Resource Management Plan for the Rock Springs area, which is flatly just sad. There were amendments at the same time to require that it continue to be used for grazing and hunting, which do seem like good ideas to me.
And so we're on to week three, which a massive gap in the budget to work out.
A scene from the early 1970s Wyoming legislatures at the Hitching Post? See below.
Former Wyoming Legislator Tom Lubnau, who was truly one of the great ones in the old school Wyoming way, has taken up writing columns for The Cowboy State Daily. That's to the CSD's credit and shows its effort to become a real electronic journal, something that's impressive considering it was set up as a right wing organ. Lubnau is a conservative Wyoming Republican, but a conservative Wyoming Republican, something that's becoming increasingly rare.
This op ed is written from the point of view that virtually defined Wyoming Republicans for my whole adult life, up until the Obama/Trump Era, when things began to get really radical in the legislature.
His article is illuminating and I'm linking it in for several reasons.
One of those is that Lubnau give a really nice discussion of the law as it used to be, on some of the same topics that I addressed here:
I guess in thinking about it, I came of age in the Disco Era and that's the law I'm familiar with. Lubnau is right, the GOP in this state, from the 70s on, really didn't care what you were doing, with whom, behind closed doors, as long as you kept your business to yourself, and it also didn't really care if your marriages broke up, etc., as a result of it, or anything else. I'd assumed it had long been that way, but as Lubnau's quote from the Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1910, shows, that's not the case.
I looked it up in the actual 1910 Code, and Lubnau was a little off. He must have been reading the 1970s vintage codification, or miscited it. The provison, and those otherwise cited in this thread, were still there in 1957, the last version of the by then much expanded Wyoming statutes I had handy, and they were almost certainly there up until the early 1970s. In 1910, it was a different statutory section that the cited number (and the number was different in 1957), but here, right from the 1910 book, is what it states.
This is in a section of the statutes on offenses to public morality, and in looking at it, I found that something else I had thought to be illegal, but couldn't later fine, was in fact illegal, that being cohabitation without being married.
So, in my earlier statement that I had thought it was illegal, was in fact correct. It was illegal.
Seduction of minors, keeping in mind that the age of majority, was a crime, but not quite in the fashion modern statutes provide for it, which would now be a species of rape. At the time, seduction of underage women, at least "older" ones, was a misdemeanor, although this raises interesting questions given that women could clearly marry at 18, or younger, at the time. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had, in the threat noted above, regarding Seduction at law.
At the same time, however, Section 5803 of the 1910 Code provide that rape, conventionally defined, was a felony, as well as having carnal knowledge of a female under age 18. The dual age of majority, long a feature of Wyoming's law, was apparently already there. Particularly notable, however, is that the law didn't distinguish between rape and statutory rape, they were the same.
It did distinguish between male and female. A man could not be a victim of rape under the statute, although that would have constituted assault in any event.
Lubnau goes on in his article to comment:
It seems, now, there is a trend to sponsor legislation to invite the State of Wyoming back into the bedroom.
One has to wonder if regulating bedroom conduct is the pressing issue of the day, or if there is some other motive such as creating a campaign issue for the election season, that is driving the legislation. In other words, how many people do you meet every day whose biggest concern is lack of regulation of private parts?
Following that, he takes a look at HB 50 (What is a Woman Act) HB 68 repealing the obscenity exception for school, college, university, museum or public library activities or in the course of employment of such an organization, HB 88 making it illegal to “publicly communicate” obscene material, Democratic HB 76, making it illegal to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable*, or in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother., HB 137 requiring a pregnant mother to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving a chemical abortion “in order to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible.”
And that's probably not all of these.
They all did fail, fwiw, most failing to secure introduction. The reasons vary, including procedural, but it might actually show that more of the old style, post mid 1970s Republicans remain in the legislature than might be supposed. For that matter, however, it might also show that a lot of the populist legislators everywhere, at the state and Federal level, aren't hugely familiar with the legislative process. In Wyoming trying to advance a bunch of these bills in a budget session, after declaring that you had the strength to advance them, was likely a mistake.
The obscenity one is interesting, as the 1910 Code had a section on that, providing:
The failed proposed statues state:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0068
Obscenity-impartial conformance.
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Hornok, Angelos, Bear, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Strock, Trujillo and Ward and Senator(s) Ide
A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; repealing an exception to the crime of promoting obscenity regarding possessing obscene materials for specified bona fide educational purposes; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 6-4-302(c)(ii) is repealed.
Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2025.
And:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0088
Public display of obscene material.
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Ottman, Davis, Hornok, Penn and Strock
A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; prohibiting public communication of obscene material; providing a definition; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 6‑4‑301(a) by creating a new paragraph (vi) and 6‑4‑302(a)(iii) are amended to read:
6‑4‑301. Definitions.
(a) As used in this article:
(vi) "Publicly communicate" means to display, post, exhibit, give away or vocalize material in such a way that the material may be readily and distinctly perceived by the public at large by normal unaided vision or hearing.
6‑4‑302. Promoting obscenity; penalties.
(a) A person commits the crime of promoting obscenity if he:
(iii) Knowingly disseminates or publicly communicates obscene material.
Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2024.
The abortion bills, of which we have now had a variety, are interesting too, as I ran across the original 1910 statutes on that, which may well have been modified before 1973 (I don't know). Abortion was still illegal in 1973, I just don't know if the exact same text remained until then. In 1910, the law provided:
§ 5808. Attempted miscarriage.
Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be preg- nant , any drug , medicine , or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman ; or with like intent uses any instrument or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, shall if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof , be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than fourteen years .
§ 5809. Woman soliciting miscarriage . Every woman who shall so- licit of any person any medicine , drug or substance or thing whatever , and shall take the same , or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever , with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage (except when necessary for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or child), shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months ; and any person who , in any manner whatever, unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to a violation of this section , shall be liable to the same penalty.
I'm not going to comment on any of these, but I'm only noting that this provides a really interesting example of the evolution of the Legislature, and for that matter a Western legislature that's been Republican controlled the entire time. Republicans of the 70s and 80s would have a hard time recognizing the party today if they hadn't been there for the evolution. I suppose that's true of the Democrats then and now as well.
I'm also noting it as I earlier quixotically argued that the heart balm statutes and accompanying provisions ought to be restored. Lubnau has gotten into the weeks and found one of the statutes of that era that I didn't address, §7206 of the 1910 code.
Going back to that code, a fair amount of it would be unconstitutional today, as the United States Supreme Court had found that the sodomy provisions are contrary to some vague unwritten stuff in the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy. "Privacy" doesn't actually appear in the text of the Constitution. The last crime noted, and the one about animals, is probably still capable of being illegal, and actually the last one, which would have to do with adults in relation to minors is probably actually still illegal elsewhere. To some degree, with this statute, you have to read between the lines, but to some extent you do not. The law basically criminalized anything contrary to nature, and it was pretty clear that there was an accepted concept of what nature, in this context, meant. Frankly there still really is, although now, save for minors and "beasts" we license it societally.
The provisions on rape and abortion could probably have just been left alone, keeping in mind that abortion was legalized under Roe, and then taken back to the state under Dodd's. Had that been all left untouched, the law would arguably have been clearer now than it is. Interestingly, the statute drafters of that era tended to use an economy of words which tended to make their intent quite clear.
What about the statutes pertaining to "heart balm" and, well, sex?
Today's legislature of the Freedom Caucus variety, all over the country, clearly looks backwards to restoring society to what they imagine it was. This actually shows what it was. And not just that, but the statutes regarding divorce as well.
Let's look once more.
"Shacking up" was illegal. Given the present state of Constitutional Law, I doubt it could be made illegal (I'm quite certain it couldn't be). Would the social warriors be game for trying?
This concept, quite frankly, underpins everyone other one regarding marriage. It was designed to prevent what the 1910 statues called "bastardy" and the burden it created on society, and it grasped what marriage really was. For that reason, quite frankly, I'd be for its return (although as stated, I don't think it can be under the current interpretation of the Constitution. Those populist right-wingers who would not go that far, probably ought to reconsider their positions on things
Those who would be horrified by such a proposal, and frankly that's probably most people now, ought to reconsider their support for populism, if they are populists.
And then there is this:
Would the legislature of today go that far? Again, this is clearly unconstitutional under the current law, and it would in fact outlaw homosexual conduct, as well as a bunch of non-homosexual conduct. Presumably no modern legislature would be comfortable with what the pre 1970s Wyoming legislature, and pre 1970s Wyoming society, was in this era. Probably nobody ought to be, as this is really invasive.
What about divorce, the subject that the other thread was sort of on, and this one sort of is on as well, and which again gets to the heart of the topic.
Ealier in the state's history, the legislature barred remarriage within a year, which is signficant if we consider that cohabitation without being married was flat out illegal. The 1910 statutes provide:
§ 3951. Remarriage prohibited within one year .
During the period of one year from the granting of a decree of divorce , neither party thereto shall be permitted to remarry to any other person . Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor , and shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty - five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars , or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding three months , in the discretion of the court.
Frankly, I'd think this a worthwhile provision and it likewise, like the staute on cohabitation, ought to be restored.
Going from there, I'd note that in 1910 the statutes on dissolving marriages started off iwth annullement, which is now an afterthough in the statutes. It wasn't theen, and was relatively extenisvely addressed, indicaditng that hte drafteres thought that a more likely event, potentially, then divorce.
Divorce required cause, those being:
§ 3924. Causes for divorce .
A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties , or one of them reside , on the application of the aggrieved party by petition , in either of the following.cases :
First - When adultery has been committed by any husband or wife .
Second - When one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage , and the same has continued to the time of the divorce .
Third - When one of the parties has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any prison , and no pardon granted , after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights .
Fourth - When either party has wilfully deserted the other for the term of one year .
Fifth - When the husband or wife shall have become an habitual drunkard .
Sixth - When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other .
Seventh - When the husband for the period of one year , has negected to provide the common necessaries of life , when such neglect is not the result of poverty, on the part of the husband, which he could not avoid by ordinary industry .
Eighth - When either party shall offer such indignities to the other , as shall render his or her condition intolerable .
Ninth - When the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant within the meaning of the law respecting vag- rancy .
Tenth - When prior to the contract of marriage or the solemnization thereof, either party shall have been convicted of a felony or infamous crime in any state , territory or county without knowledge on the part of the other party of such fact at the time of such marriage . Eleventh - When the intended wife at the time of contracting mariage, or at the time of the solemnization thereof shall have been pregnant by any other man than her intended husband and without his knowledge at the time of such solemnization . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1571 ; R. S. 1899 , § 2988. ]
Evidence was required:
§ 3947. Corroborating evidence required .
No decree of divorce, and of the nullity of a marriage, shall be made solely on the declara- tions , confessions or admissions of the parties , but the court shall in all cases require other evidence in its nature corroborative of such declarations , concessions or admissions . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1597 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3011. ]
§ 3948. Proof of adultery insufficient when .
In any action brought for divorce on the ground of adultery , although the fact of adultery be established , the court may deny a divorce in the following cases:
First - When the offense shall appear to have been committed by the procurement , or with the connivance of the plaintiff .
Second - When the offense charged shall have been forgiven by the injured party and such forgiveness shall be proved by express proof , or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the offense .
Third - When there shall have been no express forgiveness and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties but the action shall not have been brought within three years after discovery by the plaintiff of the of fense charged . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1598 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3012. ]
Provisions were provided for to restrain and examine the husband during divorce proceedings, but not the wives.
Again, the old law here would work, or at least it would with modification. Would anyone be bold enough to suggest it be restored.
I doubt it, and therein lies an element of built in hypocrisy of the modern populist social warrior. To really get at the core of this, you have to get to the core of it. But hardly anyone is willing to even contemplate what that means.
Lubnau has pointed out that, at one time, the laws were much more restrictive in conservative Wyoming. In the 1970s, the Republican Party, not the Democrats, radically liberalized them. But not only did the US become much more liberal, all society did as well, for good or ill (probably mostly for ill). Many of those who carry the banner for a return to what they regard as having been great aren't prepared to go back to what that really meant, but like Dr. Zhivago states in the novel, an operation cutting out corruption, if that's what you are really doing, is a deep operation.
Put another way, you can't really address these social issues unless you are prepared to go to the very core of them, and that would mean addressing male/female, male/male, female/female "adult" relationships at their core. The only thing that the populist far right is really willing to do is to address homosexuality in its various expressions. But that's relatively rare, and if you aren't willing to go further, and say that those relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that you marry once and for life, well then, you really are just pointing fingers.
* This bill provides an example of why the Wyoming Democrats go nowhere. There's no reason for the Democratics here to be the party of death, like they insist on being elsewhere, and bills like this keep moderate Republicans who would cross over from doing so. This is particularly the case as this bill stands less than 0 chance of being introduced.
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
