Ever try looking for the information? It's all over the internet, even the hundreds of pro-homosexual, pro-sodomy sites.
All Things Queer - GAY & LESBIAN ISSUES - coverage, commentary & community
The underlying case was a result of an arrest of two men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone Garner, who were arrested when police entered Lawrence's home and found the men having sex. They were charged with "deviant homosexual conduct," a misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine of up to $500 and spent the night of their arrest in jail. The officers had been responding to a call from a third men that there was an armed intruder in the home. The caller turned out to be Garner's roommate and he was later sentenced to 30 days in jail for filing a false report.
At trial, Lawrence and Garner pleaded "no contest" in order to create an appealable finding of guilt.
Sodomy Laws
The call that led to the arrest of the two Houston gay men came from Roger David Nance. Harris County Sheriff's Department officers responded to his report of an armed man in an apartment complex, and he directed them to the apartment where Garner and Lawrence were found. Nance pleaded no contest and served 15 days in jail for filing a false police report. David Jones, an attorney for the two men, cited Nance's motive as a "personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment."
Sodomy Laws
Robert Royce Eubanks, who was Garner’s roommate, was convicted of filing the false report and was sentenced to 30 days in jail
Grim Amusements
Police entered the unlocked apartment after a third man, Robert Royce Eubanks, falsely reported an armed intruder was there. Officers found Lawrence and Garner having consensual sex. The men were arrested and charged with deviant homosexual conduct, a misdemeanor. Eubanks, who was Garner's roommate, was convicted of filing a false report and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Police said Garner and Eubanks had a history of filing false reports on each other.
suba
Robert Royce Eubanks, 40, has since been sentenced to 15 days for filing a false report with the police. He is said to know both of the men arrested. Speculation is that jealousy played a role in his placing the call to the police.
If they can speculate that it was one man being catty to another, then I can speculate that the call was a set up for a court challenge of Texas law.
I've seen the name of the caller reported 2 different ways (an alias?) "Roger David Nance" and "Robert Royce Eubanks".
I had earlier only seen the Eubanks name and this is what I found then:
HPD News Release
Date: October 17, 2000
Subject: Incident at 3942 Faulkner A man assaulted in the 3900 block of Faulkner on October 10 has died from his injuries.
Robert Royce Eubanks, 42, suffered severe head wounds and was pronounced dead last Saturday (Oct. 14) at Memorial Hermann Hospital.
Eubanks had left a residence on Faulkner, where he had been visiting a friend, and was seen walking in the 3900 block of Faulkner. Someone from the residence on Faulkner contacted 911 and Eubanks was transported to the hospital.
There is no known motive or suspect in this case at this time.
Anyone with information in this incident is urged to contact the Houston Police Homicide Division at 713-308-3600 or Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS.
The case was assigned to Officer L.D. Garretson of the HPD Homicide Division.
Certainly the sometimes but not always reported detail that all 3 men knew each other, at least one of them had dated the caller, and that they were all homosexual blows such commentary as follows out of the water:
It comes from a weblog site and the posters there assumed it be a homophobic neighbor that placed the call.
This comes from last month (found in an online search along with the rest of the articles in my previous post). The conversation drops in and out of the Texas case and the comments made by the Senator.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25303 Boltman: actually, if you look at the facts of the case before SCOTUS, it was almost certainly staged by people that were looking to challenge the law in court.
Sources?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:00 PM PST on April 24
Strange as it may seem, it is a legal contract between two people; as long as they choose to "make it official" they need to follow the official rules. If they don't want it to be a legal contract, they shouldn't marry - in that case their cheating on one another can't be considered a legal issue.
I agree, in relation to a marriage adultery is a legal matter. But is it a criminal matter or simply a civil one? Presumably Santorum was talking about adultery as a criminal matter as that was the context for all the other mentioned categories (as it is the context of the SC case).
For example, in Florida, if a man cheats on his wife and those were the agreed upon rules of their marriage, then it is a definite issue for a civil (divorce) court. But is it an issue for a criminal court? Technically, yes. Section 798.01 of the Florida Criminal Code:
"Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section."
Of course, I doubt this is ever enforced. But then most sodomy laws are rarely enforced.
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:04 PM PST on April 24
Boltman: The call that led to the arrest of the two Houston gay men came from Roger David Nance. Harris County Sheriff's Department officers responded to his report of an armed man in an apartment complex, and he directed them to the apartment where Garner and Lawrence were found. Nance pleaded no contest and served 15 days in jail for filing a false police report. David Jones, an attorney for the two men, cited Nance's motive as a "personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment." [SOURCE]
So, not only did they not choose to be caught in flagrante, leading to fines, jail time and a lifetime sex offenders registration, but their homophobic (Ok, I'm guessing there...but it's an edumacated one) neighbour did jail time too.
What do you have?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:19 PM PST on April 24
dash slot -- I have nothing beyond your link, I just find the defendants' version of events to be implausible. The article itself notes that gay activists have been trying to get rid of this law for a long time but haven't been able to come up with a good test case. The DA admits that the only reason he is prosecuting is because he wants to see the law declared unconstitutional. The defendants themselves seem pretty enthusiastic about defending themselves in court--a huge cost in terms of time, if not money. And honestly, it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of, and it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.
Obviously, they're going to deny that it was staged because it makes their case look much weaker. But it all just smells way too fishy to me. And if I'm right that the door to the apartment was open when the police showed up (I'm sure I read that somewhere but now can't find it), then I'd say that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if I'm wrong about the door, I still would bet money that it was staged in order to generate a good test case.
I still want them to win their case, of course, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their version of the facts uncritically.
posted by boltman at 2:40 PM PST on April 24
it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.
Wow. You must be out of breath after those leaps of logic, boltman. I'm breathless after just reading 'em.
posted by soyjoy at 2:47 PM PST on April 24
Principled people are usually willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. Sometimes they even engage in civil disobedience and go to jail. People motivated by prejudice and contempt seldom are, because they're too busy looking out for number one. It's not really logic, just basic human nature.
Besides, there's (unfortunately) plenty of ways for homophobes to harrass gay people. Why choose a way that is almost certainly going to get you in trouble? On the other hand, if you're trying to manufacture some good facts for a test case, calling the police and telling them that someone's waiving a gun around in an apartment is about the only way your going to be able to do it.
posted by boltman at 3:16 PM PST on April 24
Update: Two republican senators criticize Santorum's remarks
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:21 PM PST on April 24
I'd also just point out that I don't think it matters at all, from a legal perspective, whether it was staged or not. My original point was simply that these laws are not enforced, so the arguments about whether to get rid of them should reflect that fact. (FWIW, I, personally, still think they should be struck down). Whether or not it was staged, the facts do suggest that these types of prosecutions are extremely rare, if they happen at all. Arguments about police breaking down the door, while rhetorically appealing, simply do not reflect what is really at stake in the debate and ultimately harm the credibility of those opposing the law.
posted by boltman at 4:27 PM PST on April 24
it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of
Yes, and there are no bizarre idiots in Texas, or anywhere else. Especially those who have a psychologically disturbed obsession with harassing "different" people. *eyes*