richard
|
|
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."
|
richard
|
|
response 1 of 191:
|
Jun 28 20:28 UTC 2003 |
I think the Court made the right and just decision. The case involved
a gay couple in Texas whose house was raided by mistake, and police
inadvertently saw them having sex and prosecuted them under Texas's
anti-sodomy laws. They'd have to register as sex offenders if they
moved to any of several other states that have such laws. But the
Court sided with them, and admitted what should have been obvious--
that two consenting adults who love each other have every right to a
private life and engage in sex. The government shouldn't be telling
any two consenting adults what they can do with their lives, or that
they can't have sex.
This should pave the way for legalization of same-sex marriages, which
were recently legalized in Canada. I'm happy that our country is
finally coming into the modern age, and I'm especially happy for my gay
friends who have lived under the spectre of these arcane, hateful, laws
all their lives.
I applaud the decision. And I *really* didn't like Scalia's dissent
where he spoke openly of the 'homosexual agenda' I really don't want
to see that guy become the next Chief Justice, although he probably
will be
|