Texas Sodomy Law Challenge in Supreme Court

Reuters ^ | Dec 2, 2002 | staff

[freedumb2003]

Shouldn't that be Pole v. Brown? ;)

[AppyPappy]

Sex between anyone in public is already illegal everywhere,

What law is it?

[AppyPappy]

And what percentage of sodomy cases are brought to court involving two people in their own home?

If people would stop having sex in public areas, we wouldn't have this law.

[Defiant]

What's annoying about this is when the SC precedent is disliked by the Liberals, they bring it back to the SC every 10 years until they win, as happened in the case where the court said recently that it is unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person. Yet, when anyone questions reversing a decision like Roe v. Wade, a case which fundamentally changed Constitutional law on entirely flimsy and bogus logic, well, says O'Connor, that precedent is so established that we couldn't possibly change it, even if it is utterly wrong.

The only reason to take it is if 4 justices (it only requires 4) THINK that they can get prior precedent overturned, or perhaps think they can at least embarass their colleagues into making an unpopular decision.

[polemikos]

Please refrain from using our current socialistic tax and health system as justification.

You assume too much. I'm relatively ambivalent here.

I think sodomy laws are generally unenforceable. (And I'd hate to imagine the bureacracy required to do so). Nevertheless, less would be good thing.

On the other hand, I think socialist trends in public health are unsustainable. Nevertheless, control of government costs has been used as a justification for increased intrusion into private affairs. However, if sodomy is exempted, that opens the door to attack this cost-control justification.

Either way, some part of the prevailing conventional wisdom will eventually fall. So, either way it goes, there's a silver lining. ;-)

[ricer1]

And what percentage of sodomy cases are brought to court involving two people in their own home?

No idea what the %age is, however, this case before the U.S. Supreme Court from Texas is just that:

"Responding to a report of an armed intruder, police officers entered Lawrence's home, and found Lawrence and Garner engaged in sodomy. Because both participants were of the same sex, the officers arrested the two men for violating section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code."

The quote above was taken from the Texas 14th Court of Appeals case decision, 14-99-00109-CR, found at:
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/opsrch.asp

[monday]

"Seems to me that if it's constitutional to regulate smoking, motorcycle helmets, and seat belts because of public health costs"

The problem is, it isn't constitutional to regulate these activities either. In fact the whole concept of public health costs is unconstitutional. Health costs should be entirely privately funded.

[Hodar]

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.

Then the law should be writen as such. As the law is currently written, it applies everywhere, including individual's homes. I do not disagree with your intention, I prefer not to see this activity in parks either; however a poorly written law remains a poorly written law.

[Zack Nguyen]

The problem with getting rid of the sodomy law is not necessarily that gay sex could happen with reckless abandon. It does already. The real issue here is that with that law on the books, homosexuality cannot be taught as preferable, safe, or moral in our schools.

[steve-b]

I predict that the Court will overturn on the grounds that the police intrusion into the home was unjustified (they were responding to a false report of a burglary, and thus had no mandate to do anything but catch the (if there had actually been one) burglar).

[AppyPappy]

If the law was poorly written, the cops would be busting down the doors looking for sodomy. They are not.

The law is working and we should leave it alone.

[monday]

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

The constitution was written to proscribe the powers of government in order to prevent oppression. Just because certain activties are not listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean they should be prohibited.

To give government the right to legeslate every aspect of our lives not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights would make a mockery of the FREEDOMS our constitution was written to protect.

The constitution doesn't include a RIGHT eat the foods of your choice. Does that mean if some legislation decides to pass laws that mandate what you can eat and when, that this would be constitutional as well?

[Blue Screen of Death]

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.

I have visions of sodomites in public parks wearing helmets.

[AppyPappy]

this is a law against what consenting adults do in the PRIVACY of their own homes.

That's where you are confused. Theoretically, you are right. But we don't live in theory; we live in reality. In reality, this law isn't used to bust down people's doors. It used to stop people from having sex in public, which is happening quite a lot.

If people would stop having sex in public, the law wouldn't be necessary. Because they do, it is necessary.

[FeliciaCat]

I have no idea where you are coming from.....though I will try to respond.

"So you do think the law ought to be overturned, since it outlaws behavior even behind closed doors."

I think its a stupid law. Having said that, I think the ONLY reason there is a law is due to people having sex in public...MANY are GAY. I dont know where you live, but in many cities around the country Gay public sex is a big problem in parks, public restrooms, allys, etc. I have heard here in NYC Central Park has its own little section that is known for gay sex. I realize that hetero's also have public sex, but its not usually problematic unless its a high prostitution area.

"Second, how can two straight people have oral sex and not commit a crime but two homosexuals do the same and it's a felony?"

I dont consider oral sex a crime for straights or gays, as long as it involves consenting adults in the privacy of their own home/hotel/whatever.

And yes, I think gays bring on a LOT of their own problems, by thier lifestyle and who they choose to represent them and how they choose to present themselves in the public eye.
And I say this as one who has many gay friends for many years.

[monday]

"And what percentage of sodomy cases are brought to court involving two people in their own home? If people would stop having sex in public areas, we wouldn't have this law."

All of them. Sex in public is a different law. Public indecency.