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.

[BikerNYC]

They aren't using the law against people in their own homes.

Huh? The guys in Bowers v. Hardwick were in Harwick's private home.

[VRWC_minion]

Possible theory....

There is a liberal justice who has agreed to leave next year provided that certain cases are taken up before his/her term is up.

[VRWC_minion]

OK guys and gals. Sodomy includes ANY oral sex. You sure you want the Sc to rule against it ?

[FreeTally]

Seems to me that if it's constitutional to regulate smoking,

In public only

motorcycle helmets,>/i>

on public roadways

and seat belts because of public health costs,

On public roadways

the same logic will apply here.

Your logic just jumped from public activity to private activity. Some logic.

[polemikos]

There are a plenty of private activities that are regulated.

However, you missed (or ignored) the key point:
public health costs

[lady lawyer]

I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. There is a big difference between arguing that sodomy laws should be repealed, and saying that the Constitution requires their repeal because the Constitution harbors a right to engage in homosexual activity. As Justice White said in Bowers, you'd have to ignore 2,000 years of human history to find a Constitional "right" to homosexual acts.

Libertarians here like to think that the government should butt out. But that is an argument for the legislature. For the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to homosexual activity is judicial activism of the worst kind.

[mwl1]

Your assertion is entirely untrue. The homosexuals arrested in Texas -- the essence of this case -- were in a private apartment dwelling, not in public.

[cincinnati65]

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) A Springfield firefighter is the first in the state to be fired under a state law prohibiting firefighters and police officers from smoking, on or off the job.

Logic still applies. A public employee fired for engaging in a legal activity off-duty, UNDER A STATE LAW.

I don't know if this was in his home or not, but the principle holds up.

[FreeTally]

There are a plenty of private activities that are regulated.

Yes, there are plenty of peole who wish to violate the natural rights of others, and they happen to have the gold and the guns to do so.

However, you missed (or ignored) the key point: public health costs

Yes, I did miss this. Please explain how private acts are a "public health cost". P.S. Please refrain from using our current socialistic tax and health system as justification.

[FeliciaCat]

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

Exactly. No sane person cares what two consenting adults are doing in their own home to each other in private. The problem with many gays is they insist on having sex in public. Why do so many gays create their own problems?

[Ligeia]

I posted earlier the news said 11 states are affected. Here is a listing of the states according to another article here at FR.

Sodomy is defined as abnormal sex, in some states including anal and oral sex. Nine states ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. In addition, Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma punish only homosexual sodomy.

[ricer1]

I believe there are only 3 states left in the Union that have state laws against sodomy, Texas is one.

This challenge deserves alittle history:
The Texas State Court of Appeals (14th) ruled in a 2 to 1 decision that the two men violated no state law. The 14th's ruling came out June 8, 2000. I was on the Republican State Platform Committee and was in the middle of our State Convention when this ruling was made public. Our platform committee quickly crafted a resolution condemning the ruling. There was so much public outcry from the 14th's ruling that the 14th Appeals Court made a reconsideration before the ENTIRE 14th's panel of judges (which number around 12 judges, I think). The entire 14th came out with a subsequent ruling (on March 15, 2001) that struct down the June 2000 ruling.

It seems that around the summer of 2001 that the Texas Supreme Court was petitioned to take up this case, but they declined, so the March 15, 2001 ruling made by the entire 14th Appeals Judges was the final ruling.

To read the 1st and 2nd decisions by the 14th, do a search for the case number: 14-99-00109-CR at this website:
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/opsrch.asp

[trebb]

I have an idea - let's just make it illegal for same-sex partners. Then they will understand that yes, Lucille, it is aimed against you....

[freedumb2003]

More importantly:

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is probably THE most important amendment we have, since it specifically ALLOWS everything not mentioned in the Constitution, pushing it off to the States, and by inference, the citizenry if the States are also Silent.

[ZULU]

I think that if the people in a particular state wish to pass a law against sexual perverts, they have that right.
The Supremes have supported laaws against Strip Joints. Whats the essential difference?

If they were indeed doing it in the privacy of their own home, it wouldn't really be an issue would it? In the latter case only the two perverts involved would know about it. They must have been doing it their back yard or in fornt of an open window where normal people were able to see them.

[JoshGray]

As Justice White said in Bowers, you'd have to ignore 2,000 years of human history to find a Constitional "right" to homosexual acts.

You mean like the Founding Fathers ignoring 5,000 years of human history to find that ordinary citizens have any rights at all?