BarkingUnicorn: Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

While animal cruelty is OK if the real reason for it is "mmmmm".

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.

Snarfangel: Here is a picture of the victim:
[www.mrouse.com image 634x591]


Cock a Doodle DON'T.

"Florida" tag beats "Follow Up" tag.