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.

[A Navy Vet]

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

You usually frame your arguements in more logical manner. They are not "busting down the doors" because they don't know when this unlawful act is occurring. It's an invasive unenforceable law that should be scrapped. The last place I want the nanny government is in my bedroom...then again, depending on what the nanny looks like...

[AppyPappy]

No. They don't CARE when it is happening unless it causes problems. The nanny isn't IN your bedroom but you still complain about it. Quit looking for a nanny that isn't there. Look for the nanny that IS there.

[kickme]

And we should suppose that making sodomy legal makes it right? If no one sees the act, it doesn't happen before God? So we as a Nation agree to turn our backs in another cowardly relinquishing of our birthright - all in the name of PC or that our own sin might also be justified. If you look away, so will I. Where does it end?

It is my prayer that God gently brings us all to our knees before Him rather than let this Nation continue on it's path.

[FreeTally]

My objection on this thread has been some posters switching the argument around to public sex,

Its the only choice they have to sound "conservative" in this debate. They have to change the entire debate from private acts to public indecency. The funny thing is, given that gays are such a small percentage of the population, public sex among heterosexuals is way more widespread.

[FreeTally]

Are you willing to personally execute a person for having homosexual sex?

[AppyPappy]

Why have a law that you're not going to enforce?

They are enforcing it. In the public parks and rest areas. They just don't care what you do in your home. You are complaining about a boogeyman that doesn't exist.

[monday]

"It used to stop people from having sex in public, which is happening quite a lot."

LOL..... have you ever seen people having sex in public? I haven't but then perhaps you hang out in places where this activity happens "quite a lot"? If I were you I would avoid those places, but then that's just me.

BTW, could you list one instance where sodomy laws are used to enforce against having sex in public? I think most people having sex in public are prosecuted for 'public indecency'.

[polemikos]

The problem is, it isn't constitutional to regulate these activities either.

Hence, my use of a strategic "if" in my initial comment.
See my comments on post 45.

[polemikos]

Responding to a report of an armed intruder...

Fisting?!?

sorry...couldn't resist.

[AppyPappy]

They arrested 40 people in Roanoke for sodomy in a park bust. The case was in the paper for months.

And yes I have. Why should I have to avoid a park so two guys can have sex?

There is a website that lists places in every state where men can find anonymous partners. It was posted here a few years back.

[Karsus]

Should foods that can harm you be banned also?

[A Navy Vet]

What the hell are you talking about? These kind of invasive laws are indeed nanny laws that reach into our bedrooms. Your "public sex" defense is non-starter since there are laws specifically addressing certain public behaviors, which I agree with. Face it Hank, there is NO reason for a law to prevent consenting adults from sex acts behind closed doors. I can't believe you are defending this with such a weak arguement, unless you are attempting to camoflage your real complaint, which is of a religous nature. If that's the case, then say it loud and proud.

[monday]

"The nanny isn't IN your bedroom but you still complain about it. Quit looking for a nanny that isn't there."

The nanny most certainly was in the bedroom for the people this article is talking about. Your logic so full of holes I guess there really isn't any point in debating this with you.

[Protagoras]

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.

Illogic. And as unconstitutional as the others.

[polemikos]

Illogic. And as unconstitutional as the others.

Either way, somethings gotta give.

[Station 51]

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 {sic}against Strip Joints {sic}. Whats {sic} 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 {sic} of an open window where normal people were able to see them.

I would guess that would depend on your definition of "normal." So, what is normal to you and your high moral belief system? What if my wife and I engage in sodomy and you as a 'normal' person happen to be peeping in my bedroom window? Should my actions be illegal? And what if my wife and I are engaging in sex that has your stamp of approval while you as a "normal" person are peeping in my bedroom window? Should I again be arrested or should the "normal" person who is peeping in my bedroom window be arrested?

[BikerNYC]

And we should suppose that making sodomy legal makes it right?

Not at all. Making sodomy legal makes it legal...you still get to decide if it's right. There are many who belive that going to the movies or dancing with members of the opposite sex are not right, yet these activites remain legal.

I suppose all this boils down to how much of our own personal morality we want to cram down the throats of others through laws. For some this crosses the line, for others it doesn't.

[AntiGuv]

No. They don't CARE when it is happening unless it causes problems.

Your entire line of argument is quite frivolous & specious in my view. If the concern is preventing public sex from causing problems, then:

a) The law would specify public disturbance.

b) The law would not specify same-sex acts.

Since you allege that this law purports to regulate public sex acts, is Texas law then indifferent to straights engaged in public sodomitical indiscretions?

[monday]

"They arrested 40 people in Roanoke for sodomy in a park bust. "

For sodomy? Unless they have pictures it is going to be hard to prove. Public indecency is much easier but if you say you regularly have 40 people performing sodomy in your local park who don't stop even when police are arresting them, then I believe you.

[Protagoras]

Sodomy laws are a reflection of moral immoral busybodyism in our society