Montana Rep. insists ‘no homophobic issues here’ as he votes against decriminalizing gay sex

[DonViejo]

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 13:14 EDT

A Montana Republican state representative insisted Tuesday that “there’s no homophobic issues here,” even as he prepared to cast a vote to continue applying felony criminal penalties to LGBT people, simply for being who they are.

Explaining why he planned to vote against SB 107, which seeks to amend the state’s criminal definition of “deviate sexual relations” to exclude homosexual acts, Rep. Dave Hagstrom (R) said he has “a lot of love and respect for a whole number of homosexual friends, so there’s no homophobic issues going on here at all.” Video of his remarks was captured by KXLH-TV.

Although the bill went on to pass the House by a vote of 64 to 36, putting Montana on the brink of finally decriminalizing homosexuality, Hagstrom insisted he could not stand with the majority of his colleagues, mainly because he feels any sex that doesn’t produce a child falls under the category of “deviate sexual relations,” which the state considers a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

“I don’t think that homosexual sex is necessarily not deviate,” he said. “Bad word? Deviate simply means it’s not normal, it’s not typical.”

He then held aloft a ballpoint pen, showing it to fellow lawmakers.

“This pen has two purposes,” Hagstrom said. “The first purpose, of course, is to write. The second purpose is to retract, so that it doesn’t leave a stain on your shirt or your purse. So it has two purposes, but one is primary and the other is secondary.”

“To me, sex’s primary purpose is to produce people, that’s why we’re all here,” he went on. “Sex that doesn’t produce people is deviate. That doesn’t mean that it’s a problem. It just means it’s not doing its primary purpose. So I’m just speaking to the bill and I encourage people to vote red.”

Hagstrom’s definition of “deviate” is even broader than the law a majority of his colleagues voted to modernize, suggesting he would support adding heterosexual sex acts that do not produce children to a list of criminalized behaviors.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted as much last month, during an oral argument against sex sex marriage. The Obama appointee sparked a wave of laughter from the audience when she exclaimed: “I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”

Hagstrom did not respond to a request for comment.

Although SB 107 cleared the House Tuesday, it still has to overcome a second vote before moving on to the governor’s desk and becoming law. And while the bill will finally remove being gay from the definition of “deviate sexual relations,” it’s mostly a formality. Technically, “sodomy” has been legal everywhere in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

To watch Tuesday’s full House debate, click here.

This video is from KXLH-TV, filmed Tuesday, April 9, 2013

NOTE: Entire article posted with permission

[Sheldon Cooper]

1. What a knob.

I would really like to see one of these jackasses explain how infertile couples, or couples who marry after a certain age, are okay as far as not producing children, but gay couples are "deviate".

[Socal31]

2. Don't even respond to the "reproduction" angle they are now trying to take.

It is actually a great sign of progress that they are grasping for straws. 10 years ago all we would have heard was that being gay is an "abomination against god's view of mankind" or some horseshat.

[Sheldon Cooper]

4. You are absolutely right.

They've lost the 'morality' battle and are now grasping at anything they can find to justify their ignorance.

[yellowcanine]

3. So to follow his reasoning, retracting a pen is "deviate" behavior? Interesting.

The man is a lunatic.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Why is procreation such a good thing?

Using Hagstrom as an example defeats that argument.

His statement, "To me sex is primarily purposed to produce people," is idiotic. He doesn't know how to use the right words in a sentence. It should be "To me the primary purpose of sex is for procreation."

But to suggest that procreation is the only reason for marriage is a belief that is blind. In the Bible, Abraham did not get rid of his wife Sarah when she didn't produce any children during her 90 years of life. Would Hagstrom consider that marriage to be deviate?

Then he says that his pen has two purposes. Really? You don't use a pen so you don't use it.

Why are there so many stupid Republicans?