Texas Sodomy Law Challenge in Supreme Court

Reuters ^ | Dec 2, 2002 | staff

[polemikos]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide a challenge to a Texas law that makes it a crime for gays and lesbians to have consensual sex in their own homes, agreeing to consider overruling its 1986 decision that upheld state sodomy laws.

The high court said it would hear an appeal by two men convicted of engaging in "homosexual conduct." They argued the law violates constitutional privacy and equal protection rights, subjecting gays to criminal penalties while allowing different-sex couples to engage in the same conduct.

The justices also said they would consider overturning their 5-4 ruling in 1986 that handed gay rights advocates a defeat by declaring that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy.

[polemikos]

Seems to me that if it's constitutional to regulate smoking, motorcycle helmets, and seat belts because of public health costs, the same logic will apply here.

[AppyPappy]

Stay out of the public parks and bathrooms and they won't have a problem.

[BikerNYC]

Hmmm. This is interesting. Why did they take this case? Is Bowers v. Hardwick going to become another Plessy v. Ferguson?

[ZULU]

My surmise is that Kennedy and O'Connor have joined Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens, leaving Thomas, Scalia and Rendquist in the minority.

Lets hope Bush can appoint some justices of the caliber of Rendquist, Scalia and Thomas, or we will see a repitition of the Warren Court and all its resulting evils.

[billbears]

I imagine the law in this state would be affected by this judgement as will

[Station 51]

Perhaps, with the new Homeland Security Act the Federal Government could install video cameras in every bedroom in America and immediately arrest anyone who violates the sodomy law. Would that make you happy?

[polemikos]

Stay out of the public parks and bathrooms and they won't have a problem.

I think it's more:
Stay out of each other and they won't have a problem.

[Theodore R.]

Yes, Bowers v. Hardwick came out of GA, but the ruling legalized all state anti-sodomy laws. If the liberal Sandra Day O'Connor has changed her mind here, then Bowers will be overturned, and states will no longer be able to pass anti-sodomy laws. And the Reagan legacy -- through O'Connor -- will move on.

[ffrancone]

This is interesting. In one day, I read that the Court has granted cert in a major affirmative action case and a right of sodomy case. I this a push by the liberal bloc to institutionalize some bad law before retirements occur?

In the affirmative action case, the supremes granted cert in two cases. One of them had not even been decided by the 6th circuit yet. It seems like unseemly haste. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

[breakem]

Folks here will never be happy as long as these homosexuals walk the earth. You can say anything you want about moslems or homos on the FR and it's open season. Say something bad about any other group and get banned.

[Paradox]

I am hoping that somehow, constitutionally, these anti-sodomy laws can be struck down. And yes, I am a Conservative In Good Standing (CIGS) (tm).

[Hodar]

...subjecting gays to criminal penalties while allowing different-sex couples to engage in the same conduct.

I see no reason to grant Gay couples priviledges I cannot obtain; at the same time, I see no reason why they should be banned from performing the same acts I may chose to do with my wife. Frankly, what goes on in people's bedrooms, between concenting adults is no one's business.

[Ligeia]

I imagine the law in this state would be affected by this judgement as will

Local news here in Virginia is saying all 11 states, Virginia included will be affected.

[ThinkDifferent]

It's a profoundly stupid law, but I'm not sure it's unconstitutional at the state level.

[Hodar]

Stay out of the public parks and bathrooms and they won't have a problem.

From the article:
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide a challenge to a Texas law that makes it a crime for gays and lesbians to have consensual sex in their own homes, agreeing to consider overruling its 1986 decision that upheld state sodomy laws.

[ffrancone]

Perhaps, with the new Homeland Security Act the Federal Government could install video cameras in every bedroom in America and immediately arrest anyone who violates the sodomy law. Would that make you happy?

Is your point that sodomy laws are bad laws or that they are unconstitutional laws? These are two VERY different issues that liberals usually confuse.

Sodomy laws are silly and unenforceable. But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy. That demeans the constitution and cannot in any manner be regarded as within the intent of the authors of the constitution. So the solution should be legislative, not judicial.

I wish the Supreme Court would butt out of this. Constitutional mischief on the order of Roe vs Wade is the probable outcome.

[breakem]

If I may side-bust. I believe have sex is a way to oursue liberty and happenness. I believe it is a human right and not subject to government control except for kids and so forth. The constitution does not claim to list all rights. In fact it refers to other rights which we have which are not listed.

Rights are not subject to plurality vote.

May I ask why you think the government has a role in the issue of adults have sex with each other?

[AppyPappy]

Irrelevant. They aren't using the law against people in their own homes. It's being used against people who feel the need to do it in public.

[breakem]

have sex is a way to oursue .....should read......... having sex is a way to pursue..........

[Hodar]

But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One could argue that the right to partake in this activity, is a right soley incumbent upon the individuals involved.