Sodomy, or the act of anal penetration between two males, is not a crime in Montana. The Big Sky State lets people be as sexually weird as they want to be, so long as their acts are voluntary between consenting adults. But that might not be the message that you’re getting from mainstream media (which is why you savvy news consumers are reading the Montana Daily Gazette, have subscribed to our Insurgency email list, and support us on Giving Fuel).
The narrative promoted by far-left media, largely the only kind that Big Tech allows you to see, has been misleading. Their narrative is this: Austin Knudsen is enforcing an Idaho law against a man for the offense, and punitively forcing him to register as a sex offender when all he did was use a fecal exit for a phallic entrance. Or, depending on how much of the devil’s lettuce they smoked before writing their article, that a man who committed acts of sodomy when he was 18 is being charged with sodomy by Montana Attorney General, Austin Knudsen.
These posts have cirulated on the Internet, with the sound of the LGBTQXYZ+ lobby sharpening their pitchforks and torches and dousing themselves with rainbow colored glitter in preparation of storming the attorney general’s office with their Priuses.
Consider the New York Times, which has the public’s confidence in their reporting that the general public typically has for The Onion.
Or, perhaps consider Vice, which is always known for their fair and balanced coverage of conservatives (they also have great ads for ocean-front property in Bozeman).
Or, Reason Magazine, which is usually quite unreasonable in their editorial bias…
Montana outlets like The Missoulian have also published similar headlines, but the Montana Daily Gazette has to draw the line at printing screenshots from Fake News outlets somewhere, so you can just use your imagination (we don’t want to send them our clicks, lest they boom from four online readers per day to perhaps half a dozen).
WHAT IS THE REAL STORY?
In 1993 on an Idaho ranch, the plot-line of Brokeback Mountain came to life. A then-18-year-old man named Randall Menges sodomized two 16-year-olds.
The problem for Menges was that sodomy was – at the time – criminal under Idaho law. That was generally frowned upon in American law in nearly every single state up and until the late 20th century. Although the sexual revolution of the 1960s led to most of those laws being largely unenforced, they remained on the books in some states, and in others, are still technically on the books. In three states – Idaho, Mississippi, and South Carolina – state legislators chose not to expunge the records of those who had been convicted under such laws while they were enacted.
That was the legislative decision of those states.
When Menges moved to Montana, he was – by law – required to register as a sex offender. The man filed a lawsuit claiming that it was unfair because, heck, everybody’s doing it these days. Actually the argument went something like, “Bigotry, homophobia, tolerance, inclusiveness, pride, bla bla bla” (we are paraphrasing).
District Judge Dana Chistensen ruled in Menges’ favor, claiming, “Having consensual intimate sexual contact with a person of the same-sex does not render someone a public safety threat to the community.”
A corrected version of his statement should be (where are the Facebook fact-checkers when you need them?), “Having
consensual statutory ickiness intimate threesome sexual contact anal penetration with a person minors of the same-sex does not render someone a public safety threat to the community.”
Dana Christensen (who identifies as male), an Obama appointee, might sound familiar. He was the judge that ruled in Bullock’s favor to allow mail-in ballots during the 2020 election, Montana law be damned.
He went on to assert, “It does not increase the risk that our state’s children or other vulnerable groups will be victimized, and law enforcement has no valid interest in keeping track of such persons’ whereabouts.”
This is what one would call “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench.” Whether or not requiring the homosexual man to register as a sex offender “increases the risk to our state children” of being sodomized before reaching adulthood (a dubious proposition, but whatever) is not up to the judge to determine. For those unfamiliar with what the judiciary’s job is, there are some excellent School House Rock videos that could explain it.
Ring one, Executive,
Two is Legislative, that’s Congress.
Ring three, Judiciary.
See it’s kind of like my circus, my circus.
Gonna have a three-ring circus someday.
People will say it’s a fine one son,
But until I get it, I’ll do my thing
With government. It’s got three rings.
But for those with the attention span above that of a third-grader, let it suffice to say that the judiciary’s job is to determine what the laws say and how they are rightly interpreted. It is not the job of a judge to decide they don’t like a law, and therefore it can be ignored.
Unfortunately in this circumstance, that’s what the Obama appointee did. He took a law that was created in 1864, giving sodomy the punishment of 5 years to life in prison, and just effectively vacated the conviction when that’s not what the Idaho legislature intended and it’s not what the actual law provides for.
Sodomy stayed illegal in Idaho until 1995. The crime in question occurred in 1993, when the law was still on the books, and when the criminal (that’s what you call someone who breaks the law) committed the act. Just because a law is changed, does not mean that those convicted of violating the law during its tenure are suddenly acquitted or their records expunged. Additional laws would be necessary through the ordinary wheels of government to vacate those sentences. Think of it like the ex post facto principle, but the opposite.
However, the Obama appointee demanded that the state of Montana clear his record and remove the requirements that he register for the sex offender registry. But that’s the very definition of judicial activism, and it was not the judge’s right or responsibility to do so.
Since then, Attorney General Austin Knudsen – who was elected in 2020 and whose job it is to enforce state laws – has filed a motion in disagreement with the judge because they are demanding that Montana vacate a sentence handed down by the state of Idaho. That’s not how the law works in the United States. It is the job of the state (or jurisdiction) that convicted him to reverse that sentence.
For Knudsen, this is not a matter of judgment on a homosexual three-way between a young man and a couple high school boys. For Knudsen, this is a matter of legal precedent. We do not want Idaho to overturn convictions given in Montana to meth dealers, for example, just because a district judge doesn’t like our laws against drug trafficking.
Scary precedent, right? Indeed. Knudsen is just doing the job the People elected him to do.
Austin Knudsen is a man elected to do a job, and Austin Knudsen is the type of man to do his job. If Montana doesn’t want to set the precedent of allowing an activist judiciary to overturn the laws of other states (or our own) just on the merits that they don’t like them, the executive branch of government and the Attorney General’s office must push back against them in order to maintain law and order.
Meanwhile, the nation’s Rainbow Mafia and their Democrat allies in Montana will be busy making hay (that’s a metaphor; we doubt they know how to make actual hay) over the issue and try to assign Knudsen with nefarious motivations and a penchant for homosexual lynchings.
Ultimately, the people of the great state of Montana will support Knudsen, who is far-and-away the most popular Republican in state-wide office and who many believe is the heir-apparent to whatever office he feels like taking next. And should Knudsen continue to do his job no matter what the mainstream media thinks, he’ll succeed.