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.

[Coronal]

"The government has a responsibility to uphold morality. End of discussion."

As defined by who?

[mvpel]

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.

The Fourth Amendment enumerates a right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects. It represents a broad right to freedom from government intrusion into one's private affairs without just cause. And consensual sex in one's own bedroom is about as private an affair as you can name.

And further, the Constitution does not "grant" rights. The Constitution includes every right you can concieve of under the Ninth Amendment, which states that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not a right.

[Teacher317]

I'm sure you won't lack for volunteer assistants.

(If I wasn't engaged, to a beautiful FReeper I might add, I would have written a different response. *grin*)

[weegee]

The funny thing is, given that gays are such a small percentage of the population, public sex among heterosexuals is way more widespread.

There are swingers clubs but many more bath houses. There is no cruising in the city parks for heterosexuals seeking anonymous sex in the bathrooms.

Some nightclubs may have members of the opposite sex having sex in bathrooms but you'd likely find more members of the sex sex having sex there (less obvious when walking in and out of the bathroom).

Where are the heterosexuals having their public sexual encounters? Are there glory holes in the wall for heterosexuals?

Women seem a bit more reserved than that. Outside of prostitution, I don't know that many women would consent to "here on the spot" sex acts.

[A Navy Vet]

How do you tell the difference?

[breakem]

It's a nasty job but someone's g..........

Best wishes and keep the curtains closed.

[B-Chan]

"A person in favor of legalizing incest would argue that "in today's world, where birth control, abortion, and genetic engineering are available, such genetic problems are no longer a reason for concern. There is no medical reason to keep incest illegal."

Considering that birth control is never 100 percent illegal [sic], your argument falls apart.

(I'll assume you meant to say "effective" instead of "illegal".)

I see you missed "abortion, and genetic engineering" in my sentence. People who see nothing wrong with incest won't have a problem murdering or genetically modifying any accidentally-conceived children. My argument stands.

Gay sex doesn't have that problem, for obvious reasons.

"Huh? Gay sex is a public-health disaster. Hepatitis, colorectal disease, veneral diseases, and AIDS are only a few of the ills that are spread through sodomy, both oral and oral-gential."

They spread through heterosexual sex as well

Let's compare the incidences of veneral disease in Pierce County, WA, which is in many ways a typical American community:

Number of AIDS cases in Pierce County arranged by Patient group and Sex:

<tr>	Adult / Adolescent Males (%)	Adult / Adolescent Females (%)	Total (%)
Homosexual or bisexual men	390 (59%)	0<!--mstheme-->	390 (50%)
Intravenous drug user	99  14%)	5  (44%)	155 (20%)
Homosexual/bisexual intravenous drug user;	7  12%)	0	78  (10%)
Hemophiliac	11 (2%)<;/font>	1  (1%)	12 (2%)<;/font>
Heterosexual contact	30 (5%)	51 (40%)	81 (10%)
Transfusion with blood/products	9  (1%)	5  (4%)<!--mstheme-->	14 (2%)
None of the above/other	4  (6%)	15  (12%)	57 (7%)
TOTAL	6 (100%)	12 (100%)	787 (100%)

  [ Source: Pierce County Public Health Department]

From the above chart, we see that half of all AIDS cases in the county result from homosexual or bisexual contact; and a further 12% are from gay or bi persons who use drugs. Only 10% of the reported AIDS cases resulted from heterosexual contact, while homosexual or bi contact was responsible for 62% of such cases. I'd say that constitutes a definite public health hazard -- and that's not counting the incidence of hep, colorectal diseeases, and other ills that result from unnatural sexual activity.

Of course, you're a monarchist, so I would expect you to want to allow heavy-handed governmental control.

And you're a libertine, so I would expect you to want people to engage in a variety of perversions no matter how wrong they are or how much heartbreak they cause in peoples' lives.

"Obviously, I disagree; sodomy should remain illegal, and those who practice it should face legal and societal penalties for their actions."

I think you should condemn promiscouity in both hetero- and homosexual forms.

I have done and will continue to do so.

A monogamous gay couple is not a problem to society.

By your standards, a non-reproducing father-daughter incestuous "couple" is not a problem to society, either. So why is one perversion okay and the other one not okay?

There's just no two ways about it: If the government has "no business in private bedrooms", as advocates of sodomy claim, then government has no right to regulate any private consensual sexual activity -- including incest.

[weegee]

Change the law in the legislature, not in the courts.

[breakem]

Specializing in good looking lesbians, a true speciality area. I always thought Anne Heche was cute until she wandered out into the fields under the influence of Ellen or God knows what.

[rwfromkansas]

Natural law and common law.

[B-Chan]

Yes.

[aristeides]

If it's true that the charges were dropped against the men, the Supreme Court should find it has no jurisdiction over the case (no case or controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution,) and vacate the writ of certiorari it just granted as improvidently granted.

[weegee]

The culprits "invited" the nanny into their bedroom with a convenient frame up. They had to be caught in order to get the law overturned.

Doesn't sound like it is a frequent occurence since they needed to pull a trick to have a case before the courts.

[aristeides]

I forget the name of the Connecticut contraception case that was the harbinger of Roe v. Wade, but it too was a setup.

[breakem]

There a plenty of places to have sex in public. I had a lady friend a few years ago who.......... Never mind. What was I thinking?

[ffrancone]

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

The US constitution places almost NO restrictions on the States (it does require that they have a Republican form of government). The bill of rights was a limitation on the FEDERAL government until the pernicious 'incorporation' doctrine of the Warren court decreed that they apply as against the states (except of course, the second amendment).

The founding fathers would have laughed at the notion that the ninth and tenth amendments created rights for people AS AGAINST THE STATES.

This is evidenced by the fact that sodomy laws were passed and enforced by states after the constitution was passed and no founding father ever commented on their inappropriateness under the Federal constitution.

This is one of the most common mistakes made by libertarians when they argue for a return to our original constititional scheme. That scheme envisioned that the State governments could regulate morals pretty much as they chose.

[Texaggie79]

Prove me wrong then. I have given you over a year's time to do so. Show me where drugs or sodomy is a Constitutional right.

Tell me how they are, yet witchcraft was not? And funnily enough, many founders supported BOTH witchcraft AND sodomy laws by the states.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Bummer, eh, that those nasty old contraceptives got legalized.

[Station 51]

I personally find oral sex repugnant, but it would not qualify as fornication when you are married.

So if you were head of the Department of Homeland Sexuality would you jail heterosexuals that engaged in oral sex? What if my wife and I choose to have sex in a position other than missionary and use birth control? Should we tossed in prison with murderers, rapists, gays, child molesters, cross-dressers, auto thieves, arsonists and lesbians?