2006 Senate Bill 6417 (Prohibiting bestiality)

Legislation watch

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Pam Roach, (R-Auburn) (R) on January 12, 2006, to prohibit: sexual conduct or contact with an animal; causing or abetting another in such conduct; knowingly permitting such conduct on property under their control; videotaping such conduct. These violations constitute a Class C felony.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 12, 2006.
- Substitute offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2006, to provide that animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. It also occurs when a person knowingly causes or aids another person to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. A person who knowingly permits such conduct or contact with an animal to occur on premises under his or her control or who knowingly participates as an observer, organizer, promoter, or advertiser of such conduct is also guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree. Animal cruelty in the first degree is a class C felony and is ranked at seriousness level III. In addition to the penalties in statute for a class C felony, the court may order that the convicted person (1) refrain from harboring or owning animals or residing in a household where animals are present; (2) permanently relinquish all animals residing in his or her household to an animal shelter or humane society; (3) participate in appropriate counseling; and (4) reimburse the animal shelter or humane society for costs incurred for the care of any animals relinquished to the shelter or humane society. If the court has reasonable grounds to believe sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal has occurred, it may order the seizure of all animals involved in the violation. An exemption is created for accepted animal husbandry practices or accepted veterinary medical practices by a licensed veterinarian or certified veterinary technician. Sexual conduct and sexual contact are defined in the legislation. The bill as referred to committee was not considered.
- The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 11, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on February 11, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on February 13, 2006.
- Referred to the House Criminal Justice & Corrections Committee on February 13, 2006.
Passed in the House (98 to 0) on March 1, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on March 24, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2006 Senate Bill 6417 (Prohibiting bestiality) [by Windfeather Blackmane on December 27, 2008]

I would just like to point out that this bill is in direct violation of seperation of Church and state Gov. Gregoir and her cronies are basically playing God and passing moralistic laws based on their own biases. They are forcing their ideals down other peoples throats an picking and choosing which things are and are not morally right based their own judgement. Let me point out no man or woman is God therefore their judgement is null and void in this instance. They will allow child murder, soddomy, and rights for same sex couples, pornography, etc... But they choose to make this one act a felony based on their own bias. People God will not tolerate a hipocrit. It is made very plain in the bible. So if you are passing morral judgement you better make sure all things considered a sin in Gods eyes carry the same punishment. You also need to understand that their are two classes of animal lovers. Zoophiles and beastophiles. Zoophiles love their animals and spoil them and seek an mutual loving relationship with their pet partner, they do not abuse or force themselves on them. The beastophile on the other hand tends to be abusive and cruel to the animal and does not care how they treat it. They will restrain it, torture it, neglect it etc.. You are being unfair when you throw everyone into a large basket so to speak. Contrary to poular beileif animals in their own way can and do give consent to intimate acts. Point in fact their have been cases where an animal have initiated the contact.

Line

2) It makes me giggle [by Anonymous on January 30, 2008]
I find it amusing that every single nay-sayer of beast/human sexual relationships has, at some point, thought about it, watched it, touched themselves to it, or have actually participated.

It's even funnier knowing that it's a guarantee of probability that some of the politicians who voted for this law have had sex with an animal at some point, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Haha.
Reply

Line

3) what it is [by Anonymous on December 10, 2007]
morally unethical and completely self indulgent.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation