On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 6417, “Prohibiting sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal.”
Yeah, I know… it’s not really all that much of a news story, but hell, why should the Seattle Times get all the traffic from people lasciviously Googling “bestiality,” “perforated colon,” and “sex with horses”…?
Anyway… nobody ever accused the GOP of being soft on mule-shtupping (so to speak,) and so it comes as no surprise that this bill was introduced by longtime animal welfare champion, Sen. Pam Roach, who told the AP:
“If these animals don’t have the cognitive ability to consent, and that’s the case, then we have to be protecting them,” Roach said.
“That’s one of the reasons we protect children; and while this is lower, it will still protect innocence from sex predators.”
Yeah. Sure. Though one could argue that if they don’t have the cognitive ability to consent (and it should be noted that it was the man, not the stallion who ended up with a perforated colon,) then animals really don’t have the cognitive ability to have a sense of innocence either. I do find it somewhat curious that it would violate the innocence of an animal to have sex with it, but apparently not to murder and eat it.
Whatever. Like most people, I’m all for protecting animals from cruelty, be it hunting bears and cougars with bait and dogs, or forced anal intercourse with perverted morons. I suppose that’s why Roach’s bill received such broad bipartisan support.
The quest for animal protection has made for curious partnerships — it’s bringing together Roach, a rural conservative, and animal rights groups around the state.
The Washington Farm Bureau, Washington State Grange and state veterinarians also have backed the bill. Nobody testified against it Tuesday.
Though man… I would have loved to hear the con testimony.
The bill is likely to sail through both houses with no opposition. But if it doesn’t, we can only imagine what kind of postcards the GOP might mail out this time.