http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25609866/

Probably one the most disturbing court cases that I've ever read about online for many reasons.  However, how did two justices here side with the necrophiliacs?  Shouldn't something like this qualifiy for automatic removal of the judges who sided with these whack jobs?  How could they go to bat for something this depraved?

I think two Justices decided that the law was vague in reference to necrophilia and they decided to use restraint in their findings. Some people actually consider the law when rendering judgement. Yes this is disgusting. But was it a crime? The digging up the grave was a crime. They didn't even get to the body according to the article.

I find it hard to swallow that they are going to be charged with attempted rape of a dead body. What legal status does a dead person have? Certainly the family is harmed here and is justified in wanting punishment for the desecration of the grave. But, do we retain our legal status when we are dead? Can we be raped? It is curious that they said a dead body is unable to give consent. Of course it can't, it is no longer a person. The person is dead. Eventually they will become dirt again.

I definately don't think this is an activity that should be approved, but what is the actual crime? I would not call it rape or "sexual assault". I am not even sure what the vague "sexual assualt" reference really covers anymore.

Now that I've re-swallowed that bit of vomit, I can approach this more intelligently...

Self-ownership and consent may not apply to dead people.  But I'm sure that property rights come into play here somehow.  Who "owns" a dead body?  My first thought would be that the family "owns" the body.  Or perhaps the cemetary?  Certainly NOT these three sick bastards.

Yet, if a gay couple goes to California to get married and returns to the State of Wisconsin to continue residency, they face 9 months in prison and fines of up to $100,000.