Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas

Jun 28 20:21 UTC 2003

A landmark ruling from the Supreme Court this week.  Remember this case-
- Lawrence v. Texas

From the New York Times:

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy
By JOEL BRINKLEY


WASHINGTON, June 26   The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law today 
that forbids homosexual sex, and reversed its own ruling in a similar 
Georgia case 17 years ago, thus invalidating antisodomy laws in the 
states that still have them.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 
Texas decision, said that gay people "are entitled to respect for their 
private lives," adding that "the state cannot demean their existence or 
control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 
Stephen G. Breyer agreed with Justice Kennedy. Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor sided with the majority in its decision, but in a separate 
opinion disagreed with some of Justice Kennedy's reasoning.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and took the unusual step of 
reading it aloud from the bench this morning, saying "the court has 
largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," while adding 
that he personally has "nothing against homosexuals." Joining Justice 
Scalia's dissent were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice 
Clarence Thomas.

Justice Scalia said he believed the ruling paved the way for homosexual 
marriages. "This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky, grounds state 
laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," he wrote.

The court's actions today would also seem to overturn any law 
forbidding sodomy, no matter whether it deals with homosexual or 
heterosexual activity.

The case, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102, was an appeal of a ruling by 
the Texas Court of Appeals, which had upheld the law barring "deviate 
sexual intercourse." The plaintiffs, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner 
of Houston, were arrested in 1998 after police officers, responding to 
a false report of a disturbance, discovered them having sex in Mr. 
Lawrence's apartment. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner were jailed overnight 
and fined $200 each after pleading no contest to sodomy charges.

In its ruling today in the Texas case and its revisiting of the 1986 
Georgia case, the Supreme Court made a sharp turn.

In 1986, the justices upheld an antisodomy law in Georgia, prompting 
protests from gay rights advocates and civil liberties groups. But in 
the 17 years since, the social climate in the United States has 
changed, broadening public perceptions of gays and softening the legal 
and social sanctions that once confronted gay people. Until 1961, all 
50 states banned sodomy. By 1968, that number had dwindled to 24 
states, and by today's ruling, it stood at 13.

Even though the court upheld the Georgia antisodomy statute   which had 
applied to heterosexual as well as homosexual conduct   a Georgia court 
later voided it. But the justices' ruling on the legal principle behind 
the Georgia statute continued to stand, so today the court, voting 5 to 
4, issued a new ruling overturning its 1986 decision in the Georgia 
case.

Of the three current justices who were on the court when it initially 
ruled in the Georgia case, in 1986, Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor 
voted to uphold the Georgia law in 1986 and Justice Stevens voted to 
strike it down.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which works on behalf of 
gay rights advocates and related groups, brought the appeal of the 
Texas ruling to the court, arguing that it violated equal protection 
and due process laws. It described sexual intimacy in the home as an 
aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Constitutional guarantee of 
due process.

Today's ruling "will be a powerful tool for gay people in all 50 states 
where we continue fighting to be treated equally," the Lambda fund's 
legal director, Ruth Harlow, said. "For decades, these laws have been a 
major roadblock to equality. They've labeled the entire gay community 
as criminals and second-class citizens. Today, the Supreme Court ended 
that once and for all."

Some lawyers for the plaintiffs wept in the courtroom as the court made 
public its decision today. Several legal and medical groups had joined 
gay rights and human rights groups in their challenge to the Texas law.

But traditional-values conservatives reacted angrily to the court's 
actions, particularly regarding the prospect that they could open the 
legal door to gay marriages."

response 2 of 191:

Jun 28 21:14 UTC 2003

The house wasn't raided by mistake, a neighbor with a grudge filed a false
report.

response 4 of 191:

Jun 28 23:57 UTC 2003

You're welcome.

response 6 of 191:

Jun 29 01:47 UTC 2003

What is nambla?  I have no idea what you are talking about.

response 8 of 191:

Jun 29 02:24 UTC 2003

resp:6  NAMBLA= North American Man/Boy Love Association. 
[http://www.nambla1.de/] (It's unclear why [http://www.nambla.org/]
redirects to this German address, but it does.)

response 10 of 191:

Jun 29 04:44 UTC 2003

Re #5:  So what?  They're full of shit.  This decision was about the privacy
        rights of two people who are legally capable of consent.  Children
        are not legally capable of consent.  This decision does *nothing*
        for NAMBLA.  *Nothing*.

        The decision also doesn't help people who are into bestiality
        (animals aren't capable of consent either).

        If I were you, I wouldn't take legal analysis by NAMBLA members
        seriously.  If they think this decision helps them, they're morons.

response 12 of 191:

Jun 29 05:46 UTC 2003

Bush is giving tax cuts to people who have children.

response 14 of 191:

Jun 29 07:10 UTC 2003

As long as you only use it in the privacy of your own home, and no 
passing person on the street can in any way experience any evidence of 
your use of it.

response 16 of 191:

Jun 29 15:05 UTC 2003

what about prostitution and drug use?  Are these now going to be legal in the
privacy of your own home?

response 18 of 191:

Jun 29 16:24 UTC 2003

It does appear that the logic behind this decision should also apply to 
prostitution activities carried out in private homes.  They would also be 
described as actions carried out by consenting adults (so long as both 
parties are indeed adults and consenting).

response 20 of 191:

Jun 29 18:38 UTC 2003

Prostitution is only a public problem when it involves coercion or crime.
In a sense, the current sexual mores involve a lot of private, pro-bono
prostitution (i.e, young (and old) people sleep with each other for fun).
This is certainly outside the pervue of law (or should be). 

response 22 of 191:

Jun 29 23:11 UTC 2003

Well, unregulated prostitution does anyway. 

response 24 of 191:

Jun 30 00:08 UTC 2003

If you regulate it, does some inspector make sure that condoms are used every
time?  For instance watching through a one-way mirror or a TV circuit?