Reverend Lonnie W. Latham once stood proud on the pulpit in the South Tulsa Baptist Church, where he would blast gays for their sinful sex acts. His worshipers loved it, eating up his Biblically-endorsed bawlings with zeal. Too bad they didn’t know Latham had a side dish: dick. The now disgraced pastor grabbed headlines last January after allegedly asking an undercover cop to suck him off. In turn, police tossed Latham in jail.
Now, as the jury-free trial begins, Latham’s lawyer’s accused the police department with a false arrest. What’s more, he says Latham has the constitutional right to ask someone for a blow job. Star-Telegram reports:
[Latham’s] attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts.
Both sides agree there was no offer of money…
You kids may recall that Lawrence v. Texas overturned the archaic regulations against sodomy, that is: any sex that’s not vaginal. So, legally, Latham did nothing wrong.
Prosecutors, however, say that the government has a “legitimate interest” in regulating “lewd behavior”. If that were so, they should have arrested Latham before he got found out as a faggot.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
While we hate to side with a holy homophobic hypocrite, it seems to us Latham doesn’t deserve the proposed sentence: a year in jail and a fine. Just turn him out on the streets…
(Note: A reader pointed out that the headline should read that Latham has the right to ask to suck dick, otherwise it misrepresents the case. He’s right, so we changed it.)
Chris
To be more precise, the headline should read that his lawyer is arguing that he has the right to ASK someone to suck his dick. What he was arrested for was asking for what is now a perfectly legal sex act. That’s why his lawyers are arguing this as a First Amendment case. The 365Gay.com also got this wrong — the arrest was about what Latham said to the cop, not anything they actually did together (and, of course, they didn’t do anything together at all since Latham was arrested just for suggesting that they do).
werdna
Further correction: the arrest wasn’t last January (as in last month) but January, 2006. Don’t know why it’s taken so long to come to trial. Hope he gets off though, police entrapment is so stupid, especially when it’s over something that’s not even illegal. Frickin’ Oklahoma…
Cullan
I’m from OKC. I can tell you it’s a corrupt city with a corrupt police force in a corrupt state. Changes are coming, but slowly. It’s due mostly to the ignorance and laziness of the voting population. Recent figures have show that only a third to a half of the registered voters/potential voters do indeed weigh in at the polls.
FizziekruntNT
Guys, C’MON! I’m from North Texas and contrary to popular belief, this is NOT Baja Oklahoma. The Lawrence v Texas case is a United States Supreme Court case in THE STATE OF TEXAS. Even though the level of the case does have the ability to invalidate other states’ anti-sodomy laws, it is still, nonetheless, a Texas State ruling.
What a closet-case, bigoted, lying sack of shit “Reverend” and his sideshow antics has to do with the Lawrence v Texas ruling is beyond comprehension. That’s a pretty loose connection there, guys. Granted, this jerkwad’s got all the right in the world to ask for a blowjob, but he doesn’t have a right to use the pulpit for preaching and promoting his own self-loathing and ignorance. He oughta be jailed for that alone, or at least horsewhipped in the town square (yeehawww! Old-timey justice in the south! Just kiddin…). Anyway, he could’ve gotten all the cocksucking in the world if he just hadn’t lied about it and tried to make other people out to be sinners for doing it. That’s just stupid. The punishment oughta fit the crime. Put that bastard in a pair of chastity panties with a lo-jac on it for six months to a year. Nooo blowjobs for you, buddy! Once again, not because he asked another guy for a blowjob. NOOO. Because he LIED.
Chris
FizziekruntNT, that’s not at all how the U.S. Supreme Court works. The Supreme Court’s decisions override *everything* on the state level. Yes, it was about a Texas law, but when the Supreme Court decides whether a state law violates the FEDERAL constitution, then the court’s decision applies nationwide. In Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, so therefore ALL such laws in the U.S. were struck down by the decision. There might be some such laws that remain on the books here or there, but if anyone actually tried to enforce them they wouldn’t stand a ghost of a chance of being upheld.
What the Latham case has to do with Lawrence v. Texas is simple. Since Lawrence v. Texas made same-sex sexual intimacy legal, the state of Oklahoma can’t criminalize the act of an adult ASKING another adult to engage in a perfectly legal sexual activity.
I’m with ya on Latham being a closeted, hypocritical asshole, though, and I think closeted, hypocritical assholes don’t deserve blowjobs from anyone. 🙂
FizziekruntNT
Hi Chris, and thanks for that clarification. Correction noted. Please excuse my influenza-addled perceptions.
Yep, that’s my story folks and I’m stickin’ to it! I’ve still got remnants of the flu so I’m a little “off”.
Anyway, I didn’t think I was that far from reality when I said the federal law invalidated state law, but the connection is clear now. Now if only we could somehow get a Federal ruling on the redefinition of marriage to do away with all of the existing arcane religious mumbojumbo. Oops….off topic.
I need a blowjob.
Chris
Yeah, I think a favorable Supreme Court decision on marriage is still a looooong way off. We’re certainly not going to get one with the current makeup of the court.
Hope you feel better soon and get that blowjob — at least that won’t land you in jail in Texas now! 🙂