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.

[DonaldC]

Just take the consent law away. It appears to be as easy as the stroke of the pen.

I briefly scanned the majority opinion and will need to read it thoroughly but it is hard to spot what prior case evidence was used to support the opinion. Seems this court turns its back on thousands of years of jurisprudence.

[Paradox]

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.

Sounds good to me. And no, I am not a homo-loving libertine. I hate their political agenda and oppose it where I can. I am not much in favor of their social agenda either. But I cannot support the government banning behaviour between consenting adults. And yes, add in all the loony consenting behaviour that you will ("oh yeah? Well what about people who want to stick breadsticks in each others eyes to pop their eyeballs out, what about that? Huh? HUH?"), I'd say people have a right to it.

[The Red Zone]

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

Using these exact words? Boy was Scalia right. The Court has weighed in on the culture war.

[Freebird Forever]

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor

May the Supreme and Final Judge adjudicate these people accordingly.

[Taxbilly]

"There's no such thing as voluntary sex between an adult and a minor, as a minor cannot legally consent... "

Well until today they couldn't legally consent to committing sodomy either could they?

[bvw]

I view withholding taxes as involving "the most intimate and personal choice", as I take my earnings very personally.

[The Red Zone]

Unfortunately the court can't add to the arguments that were brought before it. It can only choose among them. Sounds like Texas didn't have that great a legal team.

[goodnesswins]

I basically agree....IF...IF....they will keep their sex lives PRIVATE from the rest of us.

[ellery]

Can someone educate me as to why polygamy is not sanctioned by Christians or Jews? Lots of biblical heroes had multiple wives...

Sorry if I'm a bit off-topic...I've just never understood this...

[OREALLY]

What bothers me is the next step...Legalizing Homosexual Marriage...I support right to privacy...I wish homosexual would stop sticking their life style up and personal in my face and demanding I accept it as normal...

[microgood]

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Gee, Charlie Manson was just misunderstood, he had a concept of existence, guess we should let him go.

[TaxRelief]

Well, if a ruling can be reversed once,

then it can certainly be reversed again.

[najida]

I for one am in favor of multiple husbands...
One to dance with
One to fix things
One to talk to
One to shop with
And one for sex ;)

[Paradox]

Justice Thomas:

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly". 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.

I am impressed! He basically agrees with me, and probably not with many (most?) freepers in that he would never have such a law in the first place. However, he cannot find a "right to privacy" in the constitution, so he feels he must dissent... I respect this guy more and more. I know many liberals accuse him of just being Scalia's house-n*gger..

[aristeides]

In the following paragraph, Kennedy attempts to limit the effect of the ruling. The paragraph is noticeably lacking in argument justifying the limitations made:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are attracted to relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons may seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

[msdrby]

Good grief, what a can of worms!

[KriegerGeist]

"May God have mercy on us!!!!!

Why should God treat this nation any different than Soddom & Gomorrah? It won't be long before judgement comes upon this once great nation and we end up on the ash heap the same as Babylon, Soddom & Gomorrah, Greece and Rome. We will be no different. The bright "Day" is coming to and end and very dark "night" is closing in on the United States of America. Only a total repentence and revival could save us now and that would take a miracle.

An un-named well-known person, after a retreat of fasting and prayer said that he received a declaration from the Lord Himself who told him "that within 6 years it is going to seem that wickedness and evil have triummphed and completely taken over."

I believe him and we can even now see many of the elements coming together to to make it true.

[ellery]

"In through the out door" -- hilarious! Yes, heterosexual couples do this as well -- I thought the court would strike down only laws where heterosexual and homosexual couples were treated differently in this regard (e.g., sodomy is legal for heterosexuals, but illegal for homosexuals), based on equal protection.

Although I personally don't think government should spend time/resources regulating consensual activities behind closed doors, Constitutionally this should probably be a state issue (again, as long as it doesn't violate equal protection -- if sodomy is illegal, it should be illegal for all).

[d-back]

Fools both. Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision. And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

Wake the f!@#$ up.

[bvw]

"Does not involve minors"???

What is the age of consent in Texas, 18? I doubt it.