Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 12, 2006, to prohibit sexual activity with an animal

The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 13 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

This proposed legislation making bestiality (or even videotaping it) a felony, is not only extreme, but hypocritical and basically the result of a hysterical senator embarassed at what happened in her district. The fact is, there is no legal basis for this bill to pass. What arguments do you wish to present? Let's take them one at a time: Consent: Please don't tell me that because an animal can't consent to or request sexual contact with a human (and that point is debatable), that it's OK to make a law prohibiting it. Are you going to outlaw the leather industry? How about making most of the McDonald's menu a felony? Not to mention this bill would still allow breeders to have sexual contact with animals! Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous that it's ok to sexually stimulate an animal for profit but would be illegal if the person enjoyed doing it? Cruelty: Simply put: animal cruelty laws are already on the books. Yes, sometimes these acts involve cruelty, and I have no problem with strengthening those laws. But, as the case in Enumclaw demonstrated, not all of these incidents (and I would argue, very few) involve cruelty to the animal. Safety? Forget it. There are far more people injured or killed by riding horses, shoeing horses, and training horses than are ever hurt by sexual contact, but I don't see Senator Roach attempting to illegalize any of those activities. How about "crossover crime"? Yes, they're actually suggesting that people who have sexual contact with animals are more likely to molest children. Senator Roach and her fans at Pasado Safe Haven like to cite the Diagnostic Statistical Manual because bestiality is in there as a paraphilia. Well perhaps she's forgotten that just a few years ago, homosexuality and bisexuality were in that same book right along next to them. The very suggestion is ludicrous, and if they actually did their homework they would look at several studies which show exactly how ridiculous this type of claim is. So what's left? Morality. And when the U.S. Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional, it stated decisively that you can not legislate personal morality. End of story: this bill should be illegal itself. Senator Roach and her co-sponsors need to focus on where the real animal abuse lies and not in making yet more laws to regulate any sexual activity that embarasses her.

In view of the fact that judges usually tend toward leniency in animal abuse cases and hand down rather light sentences, I believe that the proper punishment for animal abuse should be a sentence of an absolute MINIMUM of 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. A MAXIMUM of 5 years would not be much of a deterrent since the actual sentence would probably be considerably less. Let's put some teeth in the law, publicize it well, and let the violators break the law if they dare.

Sure, make animal abuse penalties severe. But this law would impose felony penalties for activities that are not abusive. Animal cruelty laws are already on the books. Strengthen them, but don't meddle in people's sexuality.

If we as a society aren't willing to legally affirm that bestiality is just plain wrong, then God owes a big apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Its discomforting to think that someone can come in and remove ones animals before actual being convicted of anything. Some of us animals earn our income, its a business. I have seen most people will screw someone for a buck and this just makes it easier. I dont know but I dont want to give up "innocent until proven guilty" to solve a problem that doesn't exist which is what this law is. Would I stand up and testify for it? No! To some it would say I was messing arround myself. So the moralists win and we are all loosers.

Not everyone is a christian including me because I think the christian god does own humans a appology for sodem and gomorah and the tower of bable and the crap about the flood and noah and.... Its a crule nasty war monger god and even if it can beat up others, I choose to worship a nicer peacfull goddess who has EARNED my love and devotion, not my fear. You are like that which you most worship.

Years ago beastiality was something that people looked the other way about. The thinking was better to bonk betsy than to rape a human. Now they make it about the same so those who have been spending time in the barn might as well just come out and rape the child down the street as the penelty seems pretty much the same to me. Yep pat yourself on the back at the stiff penelty, heck make it harsher and right up there with murder like oregon. When Oregon made their law it was less sever to strangle a person to death than to commit beastiality. Maby the legleslators need to sit down and chill out and think it through a little bit better and make the punishment fit the crime, or think about if it even is one or something that needs to be addressed.

Sounds like the BSE scare except this is the state, not the feds.

I think what you law makers should do is spend your time passing bills that do some good. Lets be real here, If you think that this bill/law is really going to stop anyone from doing what they are doing in the privacy of their own homes already, you are wrong. Quit wasting the tax payers money! Your morality is not everyone's morality. This is supposed to be a free country. Whats worse is that a person can accuse someone of bestiality and get their aniamls taken away (if this bill passes). You are all looking for alot of problems from this I assure you. Sometimes when I look around, I think the real terrorists are in politics.

There is one thing missing to make this bill airtight that I think you lawmakers need to address. This is the right to beat a confession out of the accused.

Umm...the new bestiality law in Oregon is a low-grade misdemeanor only. I think you're referring to the felony animal-cruelty law.

To say "conduct X is animal cruelty" is valid if, and only if, conduct X is substantially animal cruelty. As a researcher in this field, I assume that such a law is based upon due diligence of research. In which case one must ask why a lawmaker constructs such a law despite some 50 years of research by psychologists, sexologists and ethologists which say its fundamental premise (that conduct X is of necessity cruel) is fatally flawed [1]. Most significant sexual information sites strongly differentiate this activity from animal cruelty activities [2] and make clear that "the quality of the interaction and the relationship - that may be loving, neutral, or violent - and not the fact of a sexual interaction is important." [3]. I also refer the lawmaker to the decision not to prosecute the other person present in the notorious Enumclaw case. Their reason directly contradicts the premise of this case; no evidence of cruelty or harm to the animals involved in the Enumclaw case could be found. [4] In the light of the above, the rationale for building the claim into law as a legislated assumption, is of great doubt, and seems to represent a preconception of a non expert and lack input from experts. This is a poor basis for law, and building this premise into legislation will (as experts at the Kinsey Institute said of human-animal sexuality in 1999) doubtless "destroy the lives of many citizens" [5]. References: [1] Information indicating how professionals knowledgable in the field, view this activity, is linked from sections 4, 5, 7 & 13 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&oldid=38208106 (permanent link: Feb 2006). Peer reviewed research contradicting this assumption Includes Masters Ph.D. (1962), Miletski Ph.D. (1994), Weinberg/Williams (Kinsey Institute, University of Indiana) (1999-2003), Beetz Ph.D. (2002). [2] Information linked from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoosadism which states "Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia" and lists several sites exemplifying this. [3] Cited from Andrea Beetz Ph.D. "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002), which also states categorically: "Former, as well as the here presented research, suggests that zoophilia itself does not represent a clinically significant problem and is not necessarily combined with other clinically significant problems and disorders, even if it may be difficult for some professionals to accept this." [4] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002568970_webhorse.html [5] Professors Martin S. Weinberg, PhD and Colin J. Williams, PhD , of the Kinsey Institute, University of Indiana. They wrote in 1999 on a similar subject: "As sociologists and sex researchers at Indiana University for over 30 years, and as professionals who are researching in [bestiality] ... we believe that given our academic disciplines, we write with the benefit of extensive knowledge regarding the consequences of attempting to legally control unconventional forms of sexual expression and the failure of legislators to distinguish between the objective harm resulting from these sexual acts and the displeasure they may feel with regard to them. "No one can argue about the objective harm resulting from a behavior like rape. Such harm arises from the absence of consent and the trauma that accompanies and follows from the act. Opponents of a human having sex with an animal use a similar standard. While what constitutes an animal's consent is difficult to define, people are well aware when an animal is non-consenting. Our research suggests that forcing sex on an unwilling animal is rare [...] "[Practitioners] appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal/s and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [creating legislation] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse. We believe that this merely reflects a negative attitude toward such a non-traditional form of sexuality. Disgust should not be a criterion for legislation; only objective evidence of harm should be, and there are sufficient laws against cruelty to animals to handle such cases [...] "Remember that less than half a century ago, all states but one criminalized homosexual acts because many people were uncomfortable with the idea of sexual behavior with members of the same sex. This destroyed the lives of many citizens."

How can you defend sex with animals . I mean is there more important things to defend in this world ?

If I were gay, I'd want *someone* to present accurate information if a law on gay sex was being considered. If I was Black, I'd probably hope someone would give a darn if a law that disproportionately affected black people was considered. So my answer is, if I was a practitioner of bestiality, I would hope someone, somewhere would say, "I might not be one of them, but they should have accurate information presented too". Sex with animals is very emotive. From research quoted above and other research, the perceptions of those emotions are often knee-jerk and misinformed. This may be with the best intention... but it is well known what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. A well intentioned but ultimately misinformed law is inappropriate. This bill attempts to prevent harm, and preventing harm is a good intention. But it does so without due regard for information and will significantly affect certain people. The "more important things" question... One could defend a million other things. That doesn't make the lesser represented voices less important. If anything it means they are likely to need more people to speak for them. Every law is important, including this one, every law needs careful thinking, because every law good or bad affects lives. You will notice that the views stated are not personal views, but solid research views, from multiple sources. I am sure, to those it will affect, who research says are being seriously misclassified under this law, people who research says are non-abusive who will be told under legislation they are abusive, who know in their hearts this is inaccurate and yet will have their lives destroyed by it, it is an important law that is proposed, and they deserve those who know the research and have no excuse to be unawares, to state their knowledge.

"How can you defend sex with animals . I mean is there more important things to defend in this world ? " I can defend trashing this law and thinking it through a bit more using the same reasonong that you are s it relly is not an issue that is all that important to make a whole new class of felons. When leg makes a law that goes for blood it usually screws innocents in ways they are not even aware of. THIS law has some SERIOUS problems. The forfeture of animals without conviction is a big problem. OK, they are relly being held and by the time a person is found innocent there is so much board the shelter basically owns them anyways and according to this the owner STILL has to pay board even if he is innocent. So if I were a PETA fanatic, I could just point my finger and say I saw something and BAM, the poor victim of the law is as good as out of business or if it is a non-business, just screwed even if it is all made up and the accuser disappears or refuses to testify as i perfectly legal. What a revenge. Oh but none of these people who burn down reasherch labs would do something like this , huh? The whole thing here is just because as far as I can tell just because of one inconent where the people got pretty much what they deserved from the law. One year probation and fines and now everyone points their fingers and the other one is dead. But somehow they want more. Maby we should just burn them at the stake. They used to do that with witches , or maby they still do. This is the problem when you try to leglslate morality. Lets get some brains and think about this and make it so it doesnt screw the innocent. To those of us who keep animals it is rapidly getting to the point where you have to hid from the public like you were criminals because someone will always find something wrong. The people sponsering this bill probablly dont have a clue to what I am talking about or even ever touched a large beast let alone shared a life with them. It will become where all the private animal owners are going to be extinct and there will only be abusive corporate farms. Not in my life, but it will happen. Too bad.

I tried to find the oregon law search page but no longer have the link. I am sure the one that was passed with the animal abuse crap a few years ago made it a class c felony and up to 6 years in jail and $100,000 fine plus there is another unrelated law that kicks in and prohibits them from owning animals for 10 or 15 years. As far s I can tell this package was quietly crammed down the throats of oregonians by a orginazation called itself animal legal defene fund or something like that sponsered by HSUS, most corrupt orginization and staffed by PETA. After the law went through and enough people were screwed (test cases) they seem to have pulled out but you can be sure there was money exchanging hans and promises to get it through along with the lies. Seems I smell something similar here. Someone is paying to get this in. Now you gotta ask why. The answer is there and it is full of hidden adgendas.

There have been such cases of breeders having their lives and livelihoods destroyed, or pet owners having animals destroyed, due to "seize first, return if found innocent" laws. Inevitably the animals safe return is dubious. Compensation for loss is tiny so its a no-brainer really. With the animal dead, evidence for the defence is destroyed too, and the only evidence is whatever the prosecutor's vet says.

...would your goddess do if a person or group of persons defiled and *sinned* against her? What would your goddess do to those who sought and propagated the destruction of the earth and ...the abuse of her treasures and gifts? ...to those who would drown her babies in burlap sacks because they are unwanted, or let their pets breed out of control so as to create a whole industry out of lethal injections to reduce out of control populations? ...to those who poisoned her earth environment with toxic chemicals and insecticides? I ask you...just how "kind and peaceful" would your goddess be then?

I read about this wonderful bill on an animal abuse website and thought FINALLY!, Washington is coming to its senses. So, I search and find this message board and am astonished to find some sicko (who probably practices beastiality given the level of his/her vitriol at this bill) actually upset because we might stop people from raping an animal. Don't we have better things to discuss, he/she asks. As if forcing an animal to have sex is just totally harmless and victimless. Unbelievable! I was with this bill 110% and now I'm with it 210% after reading this board. Only a sick-minded individual would get so outraged over this bill. IT'S A GOOD THING, you idiot!!!!!

Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean you get to pass a law about it. You probably want felony laws passed against all sexual acts you don't consider "normal". The problem is, you don't get to do that. Laws have to pass constitutional scrutiny. This bill has passed into law now but it will be defeated in the courts at some point. The Supreme Court took care of that problem, all it will take is someone with the guts enough to challenge it. What matters is the Constitution, and this law violates it.

QUOTE - Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean you get to pass a law about it. No need to try to make me out to be someone who is trying to have laws passed because I don't like the behavior. I think it's CRIMINAL behavior. I find it distasteful when people smoke in restaurants, but guess what - I don't agree with the laws banning smoking in restaurants. Common sense will tell any human being who isn't mentally retarded that having sex with animals is not only distasteful, but it is also criminal. An animal cannot consent. Neither can a child. It's really as simple as that. QUOTE - You probably want felony laws passed against all sexual acts you don't consider "normal". If you are referring to gays, I don't condone it, but what two consenting adults do in their own home is not my concern. BUT, if anyone has sex with a child or an animal, or anyone without their consent, then that IS my concern. As well it should be every decent, moral person's concern. QUOTE - This bill has passed into law now but it will be defeated in the courts at some point. That remains to be seen. QUOTE - The Supreme Court took care of that problem, all it will take is someone with the guts enough to challenge it. I have a good idea - why don't YOU challenge it? Make your name be known that you want to defeat a bill that protects innocents.

First the legislature has to deal with gender confusion, now species confusion. What a sick state. 20 plus years of leftist Governors and this is what we get. The good part is that not even the gun-grabbing leftist Homocrats could vote against it. Funny how election year politics works, huh?

"Morals are for people who have them." Terrorists have morals, look whats happening. This bill wreaks of morals. The stench of a election year is apon us. Politicians are like salesmen. If you believe everything they tell you, you will buy everything they have to sell.

looking the other way doesn't make it right people used to look the other way about all kinds of things abusing their kids beating up the wife none of it is right it wasn't right then and it isn't right now

I really tired of people hiding behind the constitution thinking it somehow justifies all kinds of sick behavior it doesn't abuse in any form is still abuse

...and non-abuse is non-abuse...

Right makes it right, but lets not concern ourselves with that.

QUOTE: "PETA,HSUS and ASPCA can go away!" Wow. Why don't you reserve your anger for the people who abuse animals instead of people or organizations who might try to help animals? Let me give you an analogy: There is no reason for a person to get angry with the National Sex Offender Registry...unless he IS a pedophile.

I think you have stumbled upon a good point. If a person is convicted of sex with an animal, why not have a National Registry for those kind of people too? I mean, if a person will abuse a helpless, defenseless animal, why won't he move on to a child? Perhaps there is a way to have animal sex abusers shown also on the National Sex Offender Registry?

Don't forget the 2001 dog mauling case of Diane Whipple. Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel,owned two very large 120-pound Presa Canario dogs named Bane (male) and Hera (female). One day the dogs attacked Diane Whipple and tore her throat out. She died a horrible death. There was evidence that Noel and Knoller practiced bestiality with their dogs. Pelican Bay Prison Sgt. Joe Akin reported finding "a letter disguised as legal mail addressed to (inmate Paul) Schneider" that discusses "sexual activity between Noel, Knoller and the dog Bane." Noel and Knoller are Schneider's attorneys and adoptive parents. Akin reported that he saw "numerous photos of Knoller posing nude with fighting dog drawings" among the property of Paul "Cornfed" Schneider and cellmate Dale Bretches. Both inmates are artists, and have made the Presa Canario dogs the subjects of many of their works. Akin also reported that he "discovered communications between Noel and Knoller to Schneider that described sexual activities between Knoller and Noel and included photos and drawings of dogs and fighting dogs" as well as a photo of a male dog's genitals. Robert Noel said the nude photos of his wife found in his adopted son's prison cell were a private matter. He stated that it was nothing deviant and reminded reporters that it wasn't long ago that homosexuals were considered deviant. Hmmm....the pair also referred to their dogs in strangely affectionate terms, claiming Bane to be a "pet me, pet me" dog and Hera a "certified lick specialist." Kind of gross when you think of the sick inside joke they could have had between themselves. In any event, these dogs were abused.

the drivel written by Robert L. Jamieson Jr. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/235805_robert09.html I think he's just a democrat trying to find something, anything to disagree with a Republican senator about--even if it's disagreeing with a republican about stopping the raping of an animal.

I am sure, to those it will affect, who research says are being seriously misclassified under this law, people who research says are non-abusive who will be told under legislation they are abusive, who know in their hearts this is inaccurate and yet will have their lives destroyed by it.............. Just WHAT are you talking about? Can you be specific? The above sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo strung together to TRY and make a sentence.

Lots of bickering on this board. Can we get back to talking about the bill? I, for one, think it's a good idea. What is the current status of this bill?

"What is the current status of this bill?" You are posting to a forum hosted by Washington Votes, who provides you with near-daily updates of legislative status and activity, and you ask for the status of this bill? Spend a few minutes learning how to use this site.

One day we will be abble to go in space... but a bill will pass saying that it is forbiden to speed up into space... Dude, how am I going to fly from mars to earth at a 60 miles per hour if Im in a hurry? Can our politician spend money on things that REALLY matter instead of approving bills that just a handfull of people are commiting these acts? You must excuse my english since its hard to speak many dialect... and writing them.

Enacted by short-sighted clowns with no concept of reality, using their positions of power to force the population to conform to a lifestyle dictated by the fears, hangups, ignorance and frustrations of the lawmakers. What PROOF is there that zoophilia is in any way cruel ? Let's see the FACTS presented openly, if these politicians can actually find any. If they can't, on what basis are they seeking to implement these medaieval laws ? Will they ban it because they don't understand it ? Because they don't believe in it ? How many of them have made ANY EFFORT whatsoever to research the subject and form an educated informed opinion ? Nope - it's sick, we don't care and don't want to learn the facts - we'll just ban it, because our closed weak little minds are incapable of rationalsing anything. Such is the feeble mind of the average politician... What's next ? Hey let's ban pets altogether ! Ban smoking ? Naaah, we make money out of killing our population - can't do that... Ban grog ? Same deal... Ban drugs, guns, murder etc etc.. Hmmm.. strange how what's banned always seems to exist unaffected isn't it ... Perhaps mankind will one day evolve to the stage where they possess common sense, but with laws like this, you have to wonder...

just banned it based on moral values. Just like only one woman/one man to a marriage. But for some reason, they think they have to justify their position with some technical basis. That's my gripe.

How come animal cruelty (torture) is an "unranked" felony punisable up to a maximum of 12 months in jail, no matter how many times the act is commited, but if a person has a sexual contact with an animal, it is a "ranked" felony where if repeated violations occur, a person can get up to 10 years in jail. Seems like torturing an animal to death is worse than some sexual contact. Any thoughts

Maybe if sexual contact is made in torturing an animal, then it is a "ranked" offense. This makes more sense. Plan ol sexual contact would be an "unranked" offense as I see it, unless the animal is tortured.