I decided to make this thread so that it doesn't clutter up the other thread about fighting anti-zoo laws in court.
In early 2019, a zoo in Virginia challenged Virginia's anti-zoo law (sodomy law), arguing that zoos have a right to engage in sex with animals. The court denied that this right exists, and the zoo lost the case. This is an article about that case:
www.animallaw.info
The summary in the above link says the following: "The Commonwealth [of Virginia] has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."
This is such bullshit. Virginia does not have a "legitimate interest" in banning sex with animals. (Laws that ban sex with animals are discriminatory, and based on people's moral prejudices, not reason or logic). Also, anti-zoo laws such as the one in Virginia do violate due process, yet the court ruled (wrongly) that due process is not violated by these unjust anti-zoo laws.
Further, the following was said about this court case (text in italics below is from the above link):
"2. There is no fundamental right to engage in bestiality
To qualify for heightened protection under the due process clause, a claimed right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It must be "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The claimed right must belong to the class of rights "long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. A claimed right to engage in sexual conduct with animals simply fails this historical test. Bestiality was a crime at common law. In one form or another, it has been criminalized in Virginia by statute since at least 1792.
Although we recognize these same authorities also may have prohibited acts of sodomy that Lawrence held may no longer be criminalized, we reject the attempt to equate private sexual acts among consenting adults with sexual acts between humans and animals. Warren has not identified any court that has concluded that bestiality is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and we decline his invitation to recognize bestiality as a fundamental right.
As noted above, the due process clause not only prohibits states from infringing on fundamental rights, it requires that state prohibitions on certain conduct "be rationally related to legitimate government interests". Virginia's ban on bestiality passes this test as well. Assuming without deciding that Warren is correct that Lawrence removed morality as a legitimate reason for criminalizing certain sexual conduct such as bestiality, additional rationales exist for the General Assembly's decision to ban sex with animals.
First, there can be no serious argument that the Commonwealth does not have a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. "Bestiality [can be] considered animal abuse because the sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim." Most "[r]ecent bestiality laws ... are categorized as 'animal cruelty statutes,' demonstrating the belief that bestiality is a crime against an animal."
The General Assembly's interest in protecting public health also provides a justification for the ban on bestiality. "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people are spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread from animals." Although not all of these diseases are or were transmitted by sexual contact, interspecies sexual contact does provide a means of such transmission. Accordingly, numerous commentators have recognized that there is a public health justification for bestiality prohibitions.
Given that Virginia's ban on bestiality is rationally related to these legitimate state interests and does not intrude upon a fundamental right, the General Assembly did not offend the due process clause when it adopted the current version of Code § 18.2-361(A) in 2014. Accordingly, Warren's as applied challenge to Code § 18.2-361(A) fails.
For the foregoing reasons, the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Accordingly, we reject Warren's challenge to the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-361(A) and affirm the judgment of the trial court."
All of what was said above is bullshit. First, I want to address the "tradition" argument. An intrinsic right cannot be given or taken away just because of "tradition". (For example, slavery was a "tradition" for centuries -- a court in the 1850s could've argued that slavery does not violate due process because it is a "tradition"). Just because something has been criminalized for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that something is just or morally good. So, I believe the argument that due process is not violated due to "tradition" is bullshit.
Another argument the court makes is that no court has previously declared a right to sex with animals. That is a precedent argument -- and it is a weak argument. Just because something hasn't happened before (within the courts) doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. Yet another nonsensical argument the court makes is that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty". The court claims that having sex with an animal may "kill the victim" -- this is bullshit. The vast majority of people who have sex with animals do not kill the animal they have sex with. The court's conclusion on this is likely based on anti-zoo propaganda sources they used.
Also, the court says sex with an animal may injure the animal. This is nonsense -- sex with an animal does not automatically "injure" it. if the court is so concerned about animals being injured, why don't they ban slaughter and hunting (activities which do actually injure/kill animals)?
Consider also that the court is basing their decision on the "belief" that sex with animals is always "animal abuse" / "animal cruelty". What if sex with animals is not always "animal abuse"? Why did the court not consider that? Or are they so stuck in their prejudices and ignorance that they could not even fathom that? (Sex with animals is not automatically "abuse").
Yet another bullshit argument that the court makes is that sex with animals is likely to spread diseases, and thus it is in the "public interest" to ban sex with animals in order to prevent the spread of diseases. This is such bullshit! As @ZTHorse pointed out on his blog, sex with animals is actually safer than sex with humans, because most diseases cannot cross the species barrier. The problem is, no major recognized authority has come forward saying this. Only anti-zoo organizations are the ones being heard, and they create this bullshit "science" that the court accepts. There is is no public health justification for bans on sex with animals.
These arguments the court made are hiding the real reason they want sex with animals to stay illegal: their bigotry and moral prejudice. Virginia does not have a state interest in banning sex with animals, and their law is not rational -- yet the court affirmed both of these things.
I'm assuming many of the sources the court made were from anti-zoo sources -- hence, their conclusions were biased due to the tainted sources they were using. Zoos need to find a way to get pro-zoo sources, and then use those in court to counteract the anti-zoo propaganda that Virginia used in this court case. As @SigmatoZeta pointed out in another thread, zoos need to start organizing and getting recognized authorities to start treating zoo sex favorably -- because right now, the majority of medical (and other) authorities view zoo sex negatively, and the court relies on their opinions to make judgements (resulting in crappy judgements).
One completely different aspect that was challenged was the idea that Lawrence v. Texas nullified anti-zoo laws (he lost on that point as well).
Also, the least that people could do would be to call out the court as being full of bullshit. The problem is that, because nearly all zoos are hiding, their voices are not heard, and the only voices heard are the anti-zoos. Somehow, zoos need to at least protest these bullshit court cases. Remember that not every court decision ever made has been good. Consider Dred Scott for example -- accepted by President James Buchanan at the time, but now considered to be a terrible decision.
So, am I the only one who thinks this court case is full of bullshit? I apologize if this comes off as a rant, but this court case really pisses me off. The court's decision is being driven by prejudices and ignorance -- and their reasoning is based on lies spread by anti-zoos. And I want zoos to win court cases, not lose them.
Edit: I also want to mention another flaw in the "disease" argument (the argument that sex with animals should be banned due to the spread of diseases) -- eating animal products, such as meat, can spread diseases. If the court is willing to affirm anti-zoo laws on the basis of stopping the spread of diseases, then why aren't they also prohibiting meat-eating?
Also, there are many STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) that get spread from human to human. If the court says that the spread of diseases is a reason to ban sex with animals, then it logically follows that human-to-human sex should be banned as well (because human-to-human sex spreads diseases). So the "disease" argument against zoo sex is nonsense.
Ultimately, the ruling in Warren v. Virginia is not a rational ruling.
In early 2019, a zoo in Virginia challenged Virginia's anti-zoo law (sodomy law), arguing that zoos have a right to engage in sex with animals. The court denied that this right exists, and the zoo lost the case. This is an article about that case:
Warren v. Commonwealth | Animal Legal & Historical Center

The summary in the above link says the following: "The Commonwealth [of Virginia] has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."
This is such bullshit. Virginia does not have a "legitimate interest" in banning sex with animals. (Laws that ban sex with animals are discriminatory, and based on people's moral prejudices, not reason or logic). Also, anti-zoo laws such as the one in Virginia do violate due process, yet the court ruled (wrongly) that due process is not violated by these unjust anti-zoo laws.
Further, the following was said about this court case (text in italics below is from the above link):
"2. There is no fundamental right to engage in bestiality
To qualify for heightened protection under the due process clause, a claimed right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It must be "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The claimed right must belong to the class of rights "long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. A claimed right to engage in sexual conduct with animals simply fails this historical test. Bestiality was a crime at common law. In one form or another, it has been criminalized in Virginia by statute since at least 1792.
Although we recognize these same authorities also may have prohibited acts of sodomy that Lawrence held may no longer be criminalized, we reject the attempt to equate private sexual acts among consenting adults with sexual acts between humans and animals. Warren has not identified any court that has concluded that bestiality is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and we decline his invitation to recognize bestiality as a fundamental right.
As noted above, the due process clause not only prohibits states from infringing on fundamental rights, it requires that state prohibitions on certain conduct "be rationally related to legitimate government interests". Virginia's ban on bestiality passes this test as well. Assuming without deciding that Warren is correct that Lawrence removed morality as a legitimate reason for criminalizing certain sexual conduct such as bestiality, additional rationales exist for the General Assembly's decision to ban sex with animals.
First, there can be no serious argument that the Commonwealth does not have a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. "Bestiality [can be] considered animal abuse because the sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim." Most "[r]ecent bestiality laws ... are categorized as 'animal cruelty statutes,' demonstrating the belief that bestiality is a crime against an animal."
The General Assembly's interest in protecting public health also provides a justification for the ban on bestiality. "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people are spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people are spread from animals." Although not all of these diseases are or were transmitted by sexual contact, interspecies sexual contact does provide a means of such transmission. Accordingly, numerous commentators have recognized that there is a public health justification for bestiality prohibitions.
Given that Virginia's ban on bestiality is rationally related to these legitimate state interests and does not intrude upon a fundamental right, the General Assembly did not offend the due process clause when it adopted the current version of Code § 18.2-361(A) in 2014. Accordingly, Warren's as applied challenge to Code § 18.2-361(A) fails.
For the foregoing reasons, the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Accordingly, we reject Warren's challenge to the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-361(A) and affirm the judgment of the trial court."
All of what was said above is bullshit. First, I want to address the "tradition" argument. An intrinsic right cannot be given or taken away just because of "tradition". (For example, slavery was a "tradition" for centuries -- a court in the 1850s could've argued that slavery does not violate due process because it is a "tradition"). Just because something has been criminalized for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that something is just or morally good. So, I believe the argument that due process is not violated due to "tradition" is bullshit.
Another argument the court makes is that no court has previously declared a right to sex with animals. That is a precedent argument -- and it is a weak argument. Just because something hasn't happened before (within the courts) doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. Yet another nonsensical argument the court makes is that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty". The court claims that having sex with an animal may "kill the victim" -- this is bullshit. The vast majority of people who have sex with animals do not kill the animal they have sex with. The court's conclusion on this is likely based on anti-zoo propaganda sources they used.
Also, the court says sex with an animal may injure the animal. This is nonsense -- sex with an animal does not automatically "injure" it. if the court is so concerned about animals being injured, why don't they ban slaughter and hunting (activities which do actually injure/kill animals)?
Consider also that the court is basing their decision on the "belief" that sex with animals is always "animal abuse" / "animal cruelty". What if sex with animals is not always "animal abuse"? Why did the court not consider that? Or are they so stuck in their prejudices and ignorance that they could not even fathom that? (Sex with animals is not automatically "abuse").
Yet another bullshit argument that the court makes is that sex with animals is likely to spread diseases, and thus it is in the "public interest" to ban sex with animals in order to prevent the spread of diseases. This is such bullshit! As @ZTHorse pointed out on his blog, sex with animals is actually safer than sex with humans, because most diseases cannot cross the species barrier. The problem is, no major recognized authority has come forward saying this. Only anti-zoo organizations are the ones being heard, and they create this bullshit "science" that the court accepts. There is is no public health justification for bans on sex with animals.
These arguments the court made are hiding the real reason they want sex with animals to stay illegal: their bigotry and moral prejudice. Virginia does not have a state interest in banning sex with animals, and their law is not rational -- yet the court affirmed both of these things.
I'm assuming many of the sources the court made were from anti-zoo sources -- hence, their conclusions were biased due to the tainted sources they were using. Zoos need to find a way to get pro-zoo sources, and then use those in court to counteract the anti-zoo propaganda that Virginia used in this court case. As @SigmatoZeta pointed out in another thread, zoos need to start organizing and getting recognized authorities to start treating zoo sex favorably -- because right now, the majority of medical (and other) authorities view zoo sex negatively, and the court relies on their opinions to make judgements (resulting in crappy judgements).
One completely different aspect that was challenged was the idea that Lawrence v. Texas nullified anti-zoo laws (he lost on that point as well).
Also, the least that people could do would be to call out the court as being full of bullshit. The problem is that, because nearly all zoos are hiding, their voices are not heard, and the only voices heard are the anti-zoos. Somehow, zoos need to at least protest these bullshit court cases. Remember that not every court decision ever made has been good. Consider Dred Scott for example -- accepted by President James Buchanan at the time, but now considered to be a terrible decision.
So, am I the only one who thinks this court case is full of bullshit? I apologize if this comes off as a rant, but this court case really pisses me off. The court's decision is being driven by prejudices and ignorance -- and their reasoning is based on lies spread by anti-zoos. And I want zoos to win court cases, not lose them.
Edit: I also want to mention another flaw in the "disease" argument (the argument that sex with animals should be banned due to the spread of diseases) -- eating animal products, such as meat, can spread diseases. If the court is willing to affirm anti-zoo laws on the basis of stopping the spread of diseases, then why aren't they also prohibiting meat-eating?
Also, there are many STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) that get spread from human to human. If the court says that the spread of diseases is a reason to ban sex with animals, then it logically follows that human-to-human sex should be banned as well (because human-to-human sex spreads diseases). So the "disease" argument against zoo sex is nonsense.
Ultimately, the ruling in Warren v. Virginia is not a rational ruling.
Last edited: