Gays Joyful, Relieved Over Court Ruling

Associated Press ^ | June 26, 2003 | Lisa Leff

[AntiGuv]

Gay men and lesbians reacted with relief and triumph Thursday after the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that bans gay sex acts even in private.

Gay-rights activists, who regarded the anti-sodomy statute challenge as one of their most important legal cases in decades, said the high court's ruling would have a far-reaching impact in guaranteeing equal rights for homosexuals.

"This is historic," said Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There is not a gay person in this country who has not lived their entire life under the yoke of these laws existing somewhere."

The 6-3 decision came in a case brought by two men who in 1998 were charged with breaking Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law. They were jailed overnight and ordered to pay $200 fines after police, responding to a false armed intruder complaint, discovered them having sex in their bedroom.

Though seldom enforced by police, the Texas law and similar provisions in a dozen other states are sometimes invoked by judges to deny homosexuals legal custody of their children, equal employment guarantees and other civil rights.

"It absolutely signals an entirely changed landscape," Kendall said. "It's impossible to be considered a full and equal citizen if you're a criminal in 13 states." She added that the decision marked "a cultural change as much as a legal change."

That the high court's ruling came in June, the month traditionally reserved for gay pride celebrations across the country, made the victory all the more sweet, advocates said.

"Given previous rulings, it's extraordinary and it's inspiring that the court ruled that gays and lesbians be treated the same as their straight brothers and sisters, no better and no worse," said Charles Francis, founder of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight organization that counts former President Gerald Ford and former Sen. Alan Simpson as honorary members. "Today's ruling is not a victory for gays nearly so much as a victory for the four words carved in stone on the court house: Equal Justice Under Law."

Advocacy groups from Alaska to Florida planned celebrations later in the day.

[Rodney King]

"There is not a gay person in this country who has not lived their entire life under the yoke of these laws existing somewhere."

Huh?

[presidio9]

Thuper!

[dighton]

"There is not a gay person in this country who has not lived their entire life under the yoke of these laws existing somewhere."

[Steve_Seattle]

I think in the last 50 years, about three people have been prosecuted under these anti-sodomy laws, and these were people whose behavior was discovered inadvertenely by police investigating unrelated criminal activity. But supporters of this decision will hail it as a tremdous civil rights victory, "getting the police out of our bedrooms." What it is, is another extension of the bogus "right to privacy" claims which undergird Roe v. Wade.

[Steve_Seattle]

This is a tremendous day for freedom. Now homosexuals can infect one another with myriad diseases without fear of any legal consequences whatsoever.

[CobaltBlue]

"Right to privacy" is older than Roe v. Wade. Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) is the first to use the right to privacy to strike down a state statute. The statute in question prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

Legal scholars, for example Brandeis, argued for a right to privacy - "the right to be let alone" - in law review articles written in the 19th century.

[jimt]

Now homosexuals can infect one another with myriad diseases without fear of any legal consequences whatsoever.

That doesn't compute. "Reckless endangerment" would certainly seem to apply, and in the case of the death of someone from AIDS knowingly transmitted, murder.

[dagnabbit]

Did the Court read their decision, or just push it out the 2nd floor men's room "glory hole"?

[lilylangtree]

One step closer to queers goal of protected status.

[Steve_Seattle]

I'm aware of the Griswold case. The "right to be let alone" is nonsensical as a legal principle, since it knows no boundaries and would undermine all law, but it is effective as a rhetorical flourish. What Roe and Griswold both did was to enshrine the principle that "evolving" social mores invisibly fortify the Constitution with new rights that would have been unimaginable or offensive to the Founding Fathers. It really is ludicrous to imagine that sodomy would have been considered a constitutional right, no matter how much sodomy laws might offend our modern sense of morality, privacy, or the proper extent of the law.

[CobaltBlue]

>>The "right to be let alone" is nonsensical as a legal principle, since it knows no boundaries and would undermine all law<<

Logical fallacy - reductio ad absurdum. There are always competing interests involved in a US Supreme Court case. The state has interests, the individuals have interests, and the court strikes a balance.

[CobaltBlue]

From Lawrence vs. Texas:

>>Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.<<
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

[ijcr]

I take it this was the principle at Waco and Ruby Ridge!

[CobaltBlue]

What happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge was wrong. I hope we can agree on that point.

[microgood]

What were the cops that arrested these guys thinking? I doubt they expected this result.