There oughta have been a law!

What is it about sex and guns?

For reasons that are still unclear to me, Andrew Sullivan attempted to drag Glenn Reynolds into a debate over a Wisconsin law I consider silly and sexist. In a post titled "Attention Instapundit" Sullivan issues a direct challenge:

This attack on the Second Amendment cannot stand:
"In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm."
I read Glenn's response, and I understand his support for the Second Amendment, but I'm surprised that he didn't immediately spot the serious constitutional flaws in the law.

First, the law discriminates because men and women are not treated equally. Women are freely allowed to shoot off their guns at all times during orgasms (regardless of which partner is having the orgasm), whereas men are restricted, but only during a female partner's orgasm. Note that the law may also be unconstitutionally overinclusive, for, by not requiring the man to be contemporaneously present during his partner's orgasm it would hold him to the impossible standard of being chargeable with a crime for shooting his gun while his partner is having sex with someone else. Or even while masturbating!


Are there no limits to government intrusion?

Quite inexplicably, this law also discriminates on its face in favor of gay couples, whether male or female. Why should gays get a pass? And why would Sullivan be going out of his way to seemingly attack a law that discriminates in favor of gays? In this regard, putting the onus on Glenn to respond is highly manipulative, because Glenn is in a classic no-win. (If he attacks the law, he can be tarred as "homophobic," whereas if he defends the law, he's liable to be castigated by the religious right as "pro-sodomy.")

Anyway, Glenn defended the law as an exercise in gentlemanly anti-distractionism:

CONTRA ANDREW SULLIVAN, I agree with this gun-control measure. A gentleman never distracts at such a moment.
So where is Sullivan's angry response? I expected a post titled "GAYS NOT GENTLEMEN, REYNOLDS DECLARES!" or something along those lines, but there's nothing. (The absence of such a post is probably a good sign, considering some of the contentiousness of the past....)

I should probably let well enough alone, and allow this dispute to die its passive aggressive death, except that I try to be thorough in my research, and because I have advanced arguments about the law's unconstitutionality I thought I should read it.

Was I ever in for a shock. It appears there is no such law in Connorsville, Wisconisin.

Connorsville is an unincorporated community in Dunn County, Wisconsin, located along the South Fork of the Hay River within the town of New Haven.

It is known for having as many bars as churches, and for having more cows than people.

According to urban legend, it is illegal for a man to shoot a gun in Connorsville while his female partner is having an orgasm.[1] This claim is dubious, however, since the area is not even incorporated.

Nor does there appear to be any county law. Connorsville is part of Dunn County, and its ordinances are listed here. Nothing about guns, orgasms, or heteronormative distractions.

So, my constitutional arguments may be moot.

But what will happen when it is learned that there's a right to fire guns during orgasms in Connorsville?

posted by Eric on 07.08.08 at 09:31 AM


It's a joke, see?

If the female partners of Connorsville men are having orgasms, they're with somebody else.

Bob Mulroy   ·  July 8, 2008 2:32 PM

Well, I suppose there's a risk of people going off half-cocked...

ebt   ·  July 8, 2008 3:52 PM

Everything is optional.

Beck   ·  July 19, 2008 8:44 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits