Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

[jethropalerobber]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

[DAnconia55]

When sexual behavior effects society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?...

When guns effect society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?...

[DAnconia55]

As I read it ... All private Gambling of all forms has just been made legal. The Drug laws -- excluding of public intoxication -- all struck down. Prostitution -- as long as keep discrete in public, or in private -- legal in fifty states and all territories. Bigamy? OKAY! GROUP Marriage? LEGAL! Incest between adults? The Supremes have spake: "Go to it!" The terms of copyright and patent have just been set to Zero days -- as long as one keeps it private.

Not bad. You were on a roll until that last one. No reason to alter copyright law. It's not the same thing.
And public intox should be fine, as long as you aren't driving or causing a problem. Some of us can get plastered and not start fights or try to drive.

[tortoise]

I believe the Texas law was fundamentally stupid and inappropriate. That said, I do not believe that the Supreme Court had the right to make that judgment. Accidentally getting the right answer from flawed reasoning, is just as bad as getting the wrong answer in my book. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The law was wrong, but it wasn't up to the Supreme Court to do anything about it.

[MHGinTN]

Oh look, up rides another pink steed!

[bvw]

Democracy without a slave class requires a fairly high level of moral behaviour, and sexual behaviour is a fundamental. While sodomy laws cab be too strict morally ... in that they restrict the private behaviour of a husband and wife. Otherwise they are good law.

Still, don't think that this ruling will not have far-reaching impact in general on laws of contract and property. It will. It is a theory of law that the majority employed which will soon enough allow the big fish to completely swallow the small fish in commericial activity.

Why? Because it hinges on "consenting adults" -- the trouble being that while the parties to a contract may be adult and consent, many forms of pressure can be applied by the big to force the weak to terms disadvantageous to the weak.

As I said -- not only a new system of law based on amoral selfishness, but a slave class has been birthed in this bastard ruling.

And that is my last on this.

[Churchjack]

Gee, wouldn't want two men practicing ANAL INTERCOURSE to feel DEMEANED, would we?

This Texan wants to take a shower. With a steel wool washcloth. I am humiliated and horrified. God save us.

[Churchjack]

Sounds about right. Sodomy laws are pointlessly unenforcable in the first place. Anything that takes the federal government out of our private lives is fine by me. Dude, that just inserted the feds into our lives, here in Texas. The SC overturned a state law that was perfectly okay by the majority of us Texans. Now, we must observe nine federal men's opinion.

[Coronal]

"Well, if a ruling can be reversed once,
then it can certainly be reversed again."

How? The Court cannot review the constitionality of laws that have been struck down. What kind of case could be brought before them regarding defunct sodomy laws?

[DAnconia55]

Oh look, up rides another pink steed!

I got your pink steed right here, baby.

[DAnconia55]

Seriously. Not gay. And it's umm.... very disturbing.

But I really don't care what they do with their parts. I'd rather not think about it. (Or hear about it for that matter.)

But that said, I don't run in fear from gays, and I don't want them to be made outlaws, jailed, etc.

[MHGinTN]

The heart of the matter, to this old man, is that the SCOTUS should not have even taken this case, much less ruled in a way to usurp the state's rights to legislate and remove bad law.

[steve8714]

Don't forget that "rights of the child" crap that is floating around now, as well as the APA discussing removing pedophilia's description as a mental illness. All perversions will be mainstreamed, and acceptance will be forced. Remember that the sins of the New Age are not incest, murder, or molestation, they are intolerance and (tobacco)smoking.

[Skywalk]

I have a question for everyone who thinks this is a federal power grab(by the judiciary in this case):

What if there were no 14th Amendment? Would affirmative action policies then be constitutional when enacted by state institutions?

Really, is there anyone here who would say "The state has a right to make racially biased laws, provided the electorate(composed of a potentially biased group) vote in officials that enact these laws!"

Sorry, the 14th isn't necessary to the anti-AA argument, though it is helpful.

If I'm correct, then people just prefer to read or not read into the Constitution what they will when it suits them?

Many people on this board would have had no problem if the court unanimously ruled in favor of this law AND issued an opinion supporting laws against sodomy, masturbation, adultery etc.

There are a few who are legitimately concerned about the overreach here, but most are really more interested in laws against homosexuals.

[thakil]

Oh no! The gays are going to get us!

See, unlike "normal" people, all gays believe exactly the same thing. They all have exactly the same beliefs and ideals. And you know what that is? To undermine America and make us all have sex with sheep! Its true, and this ruling only helps. By allowing homosexuals to express love for each other in a fashion we don't like, then they will take over! Its a logical progression.

Oh, and I'm surprised I have to say it but it looks like here I do, I am not gay, and I'm probably getting more than you guys are, from the pathetic way you act on here.

[steve8714]

I said nothing about homosexuals. My larger problem is with the mental fudge packers at SCROTUS

[steve8714]

Now, THAT'S bestial!

[jwalsh07]

Look, it boils down to this. Kennedy wrote the decision and his opinion is that sodomy is a fundamental right while the life of the unborn isn't.

Libertarian whackoism.

Up is down, down is up. If sodomy is a fundamental right, then health care, a home in the burbs and a college education most certainly are as well.

With Kennedy's reasoning anything is possible because one can argue that without those the "dignity of the those indivduals is not respected".

Assinine.

[jejones]

Thanks for the link. It's interesting to see the following, which is near the very beginning of Justice Thomas's dissent:

I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

[Skywalk]

Uh, right. So since Plessy v. Ferguson established separate but equal, that means that all rulings from that point forward are directly related?

I understand the "penumbra" was invoked in this decision, but I don't think one need think Roe V. Wade should stand just because one agrees with this decision or at least understands it.

Your assertion that because one has a right to engage in conduct that does not infringe on your rights means that one can claim rights that indenture others into your service is risible. Please connect those two.

Be logical, does right to be a holocaust revisionist or spread "hate" mean that one day I can claim the right to a free car? WHAT?

Look, take a different approach because that one is doomed.

[Marysecretary]

If we don't have conservative judges who interpret the constitution as it should be, we will be slipping into an even bigger mess than we are now morally AND spiritually. This nation is in big trouble because of the liberal view of morals, abortion, homosexuality, you name it. If we don't get good judges, we're done for. It will take decades to recover.