Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

10-606 isn’t a bestiality law , it’s a cruelty to animals law

Bestiality is cruelty.

It absolutely is NOT.

But whether you like it or not, there ARE animal-attracted-persons out there. And they engage in consensual sex with species other than humans every day. And you do not get to be the morality police here. So get over it.


If you care so much about animals, I hope you’re a vegan and are working every day to ban hunting, fishing, farming and selling/buying and eating meat. Because no one with an animal attraction is killing and eating their lover.

There is no such thing as consensual sex with an animal.
You should probably be in jail.

Anonymous wrote:Damn you, Poe's Law.

At least we made it a few pages first?

Damn you, Poe's Law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

10-606 isn’t a bestiality law , it’s a cruelty to animals law

Bestiality is cruelty.

It absolutely is NOT.

But whether you like it or not, there ARE animal-attracted-persons out there. And they engage in consensual sex with species other than humans every day. And you do not get to be the morality police here. So get over it.


If you care so much about animals, I hope you’re a vegan and are working every day to ban hunting, fishing, farming and selling/buying and eating meat. Because no one with an animal attraction is killing and eating their lover.

Anonymous wrote:https://wtop.com/maryland/2023/05/moore-issues-first-vetoes-lets-cannabis-search-bill-and-others-become-law-without-his-signature/

It repeals criminal code section 3-322 which prohibits bestiality. Did Maryland just legalize bestiality??

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/bills/hb/hb0131T.pdf

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcr§ion=3-322&enactments=false#:~:text=§3–322.&text=(3)%20commit%20another%20unnatural%20or,not%20exceeding%20%241%2C000%20or%20both.

No. They didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

10-606 isn’t a bestiality law , it’s a cruelty to animals law

You certainly are dense - bestiality is a form of animal cruelty. Look at the law, not the 2013 version you seem to think is current.


https://codes.findlaw.com/md/criminal-law/md-code-crim-law-sect-10-606/
10-606
(a)(1) In this section, “sexual contact with an animal” means any act:

(i) involving:

1. a person touching the sex organ or anus of an animal;

2. contact between:

A. the sex organ or anus of a person and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of an animal;  or

B. the sex organ or anus of an animal, and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person;  or

3. insertion of:

A. any part of the body of a person into the opening of the vagina or anus of an animal;

B. any part of an animal's body into the opening of the vagina or anus of a person;  or

C. any object into the opening of the vagina or anus of an animal;  and

(ii) committed for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, abuse, or financial gain.

(2) “Sexual contact with an animal” does not include:

(i) an accepted veterinary practice;

(ii) artificial insemination of an animal for reproductive purposes;

(iii) accepted animal husbandry practices, including:

1. grooming;

2. raising;
3. breeding;

4. assisting with the birthing process;  or

5. any other activity that provides care for an animal;  or

(iv) generally accepted practices relating to the judging of breed confirmation.

(b) A person may not:

(1) intentionally:

(i) mutilate an animal;

(ii) torture an animal;

(iii) cruelly beat an animal;

(iv) cruelly kill an animal;  or

(v) engage in sexual contact with an animal;

(2) cause, procure, or authorize an act prohibited under item (1) of this subsection;  or

(3) except in the case of self-defense, intentionally inflict bodily harm, permanent disability, or death on an animal owned or used by a law enforcement unit.

(c)(1) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of aggravated cruelty to animals and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.

(2) As a condition of sentencing, the court may:

(i) order a defendant convicted of violating this section to:

1. participate in and pay for psychological counseling;  and

2. pay, in addition to any other fines and costs, all reasonable costs incurred in removing, housing, treating, or euthanizing an animal confiscated from the defendant;  and

(ii) prohibit a defendant from owning, possessing, or residing with an animal for a specified period of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

10-606 isn’t a bestiality law , it’s a cruelty to animals law

Bestiality is cruelty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

10-606 isn’t a bestiality law , it’s a cruelty to animals law

Anonymous wrote:This is disgusting.

This is legal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn’t they just take the another person part out of 3-322

They legalized bestiality while legalizing oral and anal sex even though repealing the law was unecessary due to Supreme Court precedent . They legalized bestiality and moore didn’t want his name on this so he didn’t sign it into law

We've heard that before, and we know how it turns out.

so why did they do it in a way that legalized bestiality ?

They did not do so in a way that legalizes bestiality. The bestiality law had already been replicated in 10-606, making the bestiality portion redundant. In 2019, the MD Dems increased the penalties for bestiality, too.

Anonymous wrote:You are full of shit. 10-606 is not a bestiality law it is an anti animal cruelty law .

You must be just searching for 10-606 and not paying attention to which year's version. The law was updated in 2019. I don't feel like pulling the actual statute up from the MD leg page so this google result that has the accurate law should be enough.

https://codes.findlaw.com/md/criminal-law/md-code-crim-law-sect-10-606/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is uninformed alarmism.

The Democrats in Maryland made bestiality a felony in 2019. Bestiality is covered under a different part of the criminal code (10-606). This was an obsolete part of the code that could have been used to bust someone for getting a bj from their wife.

so why didn’t moore sign it?

Moore wasn't governor in 2019

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am more interested as to why he didn't sign Crutchfield's cannabis car search bill.

Maybe he knows it's going to lead to a blood bath this summer, but wasn't courageous enough to veto it.

Didn’t want his name on a bill that in effect legalized driving while high

"I drive more carefully when I am high."

Maryland drivers, in a nutshell.

Apparently you have never experienced the Kamikaze Teslas of the Dulles Toll Road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am more interested as to why he didn't sign Crutchfield's cannabis car search bill.

Maybe he knows it's going to lead to a blood bath this summer, but wasn't courageous enough to veto it.

Didn’t want his name on a bill that in effect legalized driving while high

"I drive more carefully when I am high."

Maryland drivers, in a nutshell.

I was driving from Frederick to Rockville today and I saw a guy in a blue bmw passing people on the shoulder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am more interested as to why he didn't sign Crutchfield's cannabis car search bill.

Maybe he knows it's going to lead to a blood bath this summer, but wasn't courageous enough to veto it.

Didn’t want his name on a bill that in effect legalized driving while high

"I drive more carefully when I am high."

Maryland drivers, in a nutshell.