Supreme Court agrees to hear homosexual sex case

The Boston Globe ^ | 12/02/02 | Gina Holland/AP

[Egregious Philbin]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider whether states can punish homosexuals for having sex, a case that tests the constitutionality of sodomy laws in 13 states.

The justices will review the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

[biblewonk]

States don't need to punish them, God will do that in His time.

[billbears]

Yes He will, however it is the right of the sovereign states to determine how they handle their internal affairs, morality levels being one of them. At least that's how it used to be.

[inquest]

The court faces several questions in the latest case. Among them: ...Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties.

If they answer yes to that question, then that'll immediately open the door to efforts to force gay marriage on states.

[Mr. Bird]

William Delmore III, an assistant district attorney in Texas, said people who don't like the law should take it up with the Texas Legislature, not courts.

I tend to agree, if only because it doesn't seem to be a matter for the SCOTUS anyway....

[inquest]

Lawyers for John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner said the men were bothering no one in 1998 when they were arrested in Lawrence's apartment....

"Lawyers for inquest and a few other Freepers said they were bothering no one when they refused to take part in the Social Security system set up 'for their own good'...." Hmmm... do you think we'd have a case?

[Cicero]

This is very unfortunate, IMHO. I'm very much afraid that the Supreme Court now intends to reverse its 1986 decision, which has been enormously unpopular in liberal circles and has drawn widespread criticism, and now once again to create new law from the bench. In other words, they are about to find a constitutional right to sodomy.

The duly constituted state and federal legislatures, freely elected by the people, have every right to enact laws to enforce morality. That has always been the function of law since the earliest times: to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society and to discourage behavior that is detrimental to society, or more briefly to encourage good and discourage evil.

At the present time, liberals have gone bananas, and think that the law should have absolutely NO control over sexual behavior yet should have the power to arrest people for smoking, for drinking under the age of 21, or using politically incorrect language. If you can arrest someone for smoking, why not for sodomy, if the state judges that sodomy is bad for society and bad for those who indulge in it? (For example, it spreads AIDS and corrupts children.)

My own view is that sodomy laws are perfectly legitimate. They sanction behavior that is bad for society and family. Traditionally, however, laws against illicit sexual behavior are seldom enforced. The law tends not to ask or tell. If two homosexuals practice sodomy in the privacy of their home, it's extremely rare for them to be caught or punished. Even in the morally strict Victorian period, Oscar Wilde would never have been jailed if he had not foolishly initiated a lawsuit that backfired on him. The purpose of blue laws is mainly to indicate society's disapproval of sodomy and other forms of illicit sexuality and to prevent open displays or advocacy--such as we have seen everywhere in recent years.

Unfortunately, I doubt that SCOTUS will leave well enough alone. I doubt that they would have taken this case unless they have already decided to reverse themselves. I think they have confused the approval of the media and the opinion makers for the approval of society as a whole. Very unfortunate. You would have hoped that thirty years of political turmoil and unrest caused by Roe v. Wade might have taught them a lesson.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

While I believe in States Rights, I believe more in individual freedom. Two consenting adults in their own house is not infringing on anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Does a state have the right to infringe on ones Constitutional Rights?

[onedoug]

Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges.

Men of righteous character, alright. The Justice's questions should start here.

[Mr. Bird]

Does a state have the right to infringe on ones Constitutional Rights?

I wouldn't think so, but (seriously), is there a Constitutional "right" to buggery? Personally, I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom. But, just because it's a bedroom doesn't mean you can't legislate activities there. You can't cultivate marijuana for your personal pleasure in your home, can you? You can't engage in sex with a 4 year old either. So it appears that the state has SOME latitude in defining which activities can be restricted or banned.

I would assume that bans on sodomy are rooted in Common Law and therefore hold a certain distinction in the judiciary. Unless you can convince me a blowjob can be defined as speech, or some other protected right, I don't see how or why the SCOTUS should overturn a ban in a particular state.

[biblewonk]

Maybe it used to be a little more that way, but states have proven themselves to be unworthy to judge in the less obvious moral issues like sexuality. God may still allow them some authority on moral issues of thievery, drug use, and murder, but as states and the Country are becoming more Godless they lose their ability to judge other things. When the states make it illegal to use the bible in schools or to have the 10 commandments posted in public buildings, they have lost all judgement on morality. No, I'd rather not see states attempt to make such judgements. God is quite capable of doing it, hence Aids and the extreme violence among gays.

[RJCogburn]

it is the right of the sovereign states to determine how they handle their internal affairs, morality levels being one of them

No, government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sexual deviant behavior by willing adults is nobody's business, especially government's.

[inquest]

And how is this a constitutional right? Is incest a constitutional right?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I don't know how it is a constitutional "thing". My point is that it is up for the USSC to decide if it is constitutional or not.

[FreeTally]

No, government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sexual deviant behavior by willing adults is nobody's business, especially government's.

But why do we even have elections if a majority cant have the power to elect someone who will make laws to punish people who's behavior he disaprove of? /sarcasm (Typical statist argument #1)

But we have to have the power to determine "what kind of community we want to live in". /sarcasm (Typical statist argument #2)

[Fighter@heart]

Exactly!! Where in our Constitution is "sexual deviancy" (it HAS to be considered deviancy as it is NOT NORMAL!) protected? Do we then have to consider Incest, Adult & child sex, bestiality, etc. as a protected right under the constitution? This is an issue where the states have set THEIR morality standards for THEIR state.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties.

Well there you go again. Comparing right behavior with wrong behavior is pathological and disordered. Let’s see.

Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians incestuals differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties.

Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians bestials differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties.

Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians consensual pedophilia differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties.

Yeppers, it works every time.

[Clint N. Suhks]

But why do we even have elections if a majority cant have the power to elect someone who will make laws to punish people who's behavior he disaprove of? /sarcasm (Typical statist argument #1) But we have to have the power to determine "what kind of community we want to live in". /sarcasm (Typical statist argument #2)

Typical Liberaltarian sarcasm if you ask me. But then again you Liberaltarians are always trying to get around the ole 10th Amendment. Now just go back to the dorm, fire up your bong and forget about it.

[FreeTally]

Typical Liberaltarian sarcasm if you ask me. But then again you Liberaltarians are always trying to get around the ole 10th Amendment. Now just go back to the dorm, fire up your bong and forget about it.

Apparently, you have nothing of substance to add to the thread.