Texas Sodomy Law Challenge in Supreme Court

Reuters ^ | Dec 2, 2002 | staff

[Right Wing Professor]

It means that your right to believe a behavior is sinful or immoral doesn't mean you have the right to outlaw behavior you find immoral.

Suppose we consider the behavior unsafe? We pass helmet laws because motorcycle injuries have a negative economic impact on all of us. Well, so does homosexuality. The cost of providing medical care to AIDS infected homosexuals is staggering; I haven't seen comparative numbers, but I'd be willing to wager it exceeds the cost of treating motorcyclist head injuries. If we're all paying for the consequences of the behavior, don't we have some say in whether or not it should be legal?

[bvw]

I'm trying to keep the focus on the shifting meaning of "right" -- I mean it's used to mean some one thing here and one thing there, like some character in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", the word mutates rapidly.

In the meaning of the Founders -- the Declaration, the Constitution, The BOR and the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers, it was not so mutant. Must have picked up a cancer since.

[weegee]

We don't have drug laws that say, wink wink, you can grow marijuana in your home, the police aren't going to bust down your door, etc. Newsflash: if the police have reason to believe you are growing marijuana in your home, they'll definitely be coming to your door.

Homebrewing of beer required some such wink and a nod for awhile. There are bookstores that sell "how to grow better pot" and "how to make LSD,X..." and there are no trails put on the customers of such literature. There are even public pot protests in Austin on the capital steps with pot smoking that don't result in any arrests. Self-induced paranoia leads people to believe that the police are actively targeting them.

Drug busts come from complaints/tips, plea bargaining where a convicted person gives up another name, entrapment purchases/sales of controlled substances, and discovery during traffic stops, etc.

In this instance, there was a tip (from the homosexual community) that lead to the arrest (on accidental discovery). The assistant DA said that he prosecuted the case because it was not his decision to determine which laws to enforce. The men were cited with an offense by the police officers and the case was winable on the evidence. He even cited that he would not have been able to dismiss the charges if the men had been using drugs instead.

Interesting screen name, btw. Is that after the photographer

Yes

[weegee]

The area maybe dry but it is not illegal to possess alcohol. You reference bootleggers (making tax free liquor, that's what it is and why the revenuers look for them).

Here in Texas there are dry areas in the state (even in Houston there are small couple blocks in a historical district called the Heights). In dry areas, you may pay a nominal fee (of even just a dollar) to join a "club" and drink at a private establishment. Even restaurants that will serve all customers can offer a special membership to be able to order and consume alcohol.

There is no penalty against bringing alcohol for personal use into these dry areas.

Use of liquor has been controlled by law (consenting adult and all that). There are hoops and conditions by which those using it are not prosecuted.

[ThinkDifferent]

If we're all paying for the consequences of the behavior, don't we have some say in whether or not it should be legal?

First, you're using one instance of government interference (our increasingly socialist health care system) to justify another. Why not attack the socialism that is the root of the problem, and have individuals bear the costs of their misjudgments themselves? Second, if public health were truly your concern, you'd be joining the leftists in their crusade against McDonalds, since obesity is by far the most expensive and damaging health problem.

[tpaine]

-- Legislating criminal law is indeed a state power. But can consensual, private adult sex be decreed 'criminal' by a state? I see no constitutional basis for such a ludicrous position.

In which state Constitution don't you see it?

State? -- I'm refering to our federal constitution as you well know. - You play a stupid game with such ploys, 'prof'.

All the US constitution says is that it reserves unenumerated powers to the states or to the people.

Another droll ploy. -- The USC 'says' many other things about protecting individual rights, -- that have a direct bearing on the case at hand. - Check out the 14th amendment, for instance.

There is no sodomy clause in the 14th amendment.

Are you sure? How about our rights to life & liberty? Could they apply to consensual sexual rights between adults?

There isn't any reference to private conduct in the 14th amendment.

See 'life & liberty'. -- You ever bothered to read the 14th, or its history, "prof"?

- The best a bunch of liberal jurists could come up with Griswold vs. Connecticut was the idea of a 'penumbral' 'right to privacy'. Is that what you're referring to? Because if so, you'd be better trying it out on DU.

Read the 4th. --- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ---- shall not be violated, --- " means we have a right of privacy from 'unreasonable searches' to anyone with a brain.
'Penumbra' is just some dumb lawyers word.

-----------------------

And in any case, a position was was the national consensus until maybe 1970 cannot fairly be described as 'ludicrous'. You might have a shot at 'old-fashioned'.

You might try having an old-fashioned shot at refuting my arguments, instead of critiquing my choice of words. Although I'm beginning to doubt your capability to do so, 'in any case'.

[weegee]

Anti-smokers aren't trying to ban tobacco outright but in some areas they are even trying to create laws to make it illegal to smoke in the privacy of one's own home.

This Supreme Court case is not whether the government can legislate what you can do in the privacy of your own home (the states are able to do so even if such enforcement would be difficult). The Supreme Court are being asked to rule if there can be a difference in law for homosexual behavior vs heterosexual behavior (ignoring that there is no gender/racial/or religious designation of homosexual). All MEN and WOMEN can participate in these acts so I find the "equal protection" clause to be irrelevant.

Again, this same issue could have been argued regarding states' age of consent laws (some states permit minors to consent to sexual activity with those at that age and above while they are prohibited from homosexuals acts until they reach age 18). Oddly enough, New Mexico permits 13 year olds (and up) to participate in homosexual acts while their age of consent for heterosexual acts is higher (according to about.com this is under appeal).

The age of consent angle would have meant rallying people behind pushing the age for homosexuals to legally engage in homosexual acts below 18. Safer to mount an campaign against a fictional boogeyman snooping in the bedroom.

[Right Wing Professor]

First, you're using one instance of government interference (our increasingly socialist health care system) to justify another. Why not attack the socialism that is the root of the problem, and have individuals bear the costs of their misjudgments themselves?

What's really my concern is a piecemeal application of libertarian principles. We can afford total personal freedom at the point where the citizenry is willing to concede that someone who contracts a deadly disease or injury as a result of their own bad behavior cannot ask the government to pay for the consequences, or compel a private entity like an insurance company to pay for it. When I see homosexual groups campaign against legislation forcing insurance companies to cover AIDS, and against medicaid coverage for that disease, I will support the repeal of sodomy laws. As it stands, they want me to support legalizing the act, and then they want me to pay for the consequences. Sorry.

I'm against paying for obesity induced injuries too. What we really need is tort reform.

[ThinkDifferent]

When I see homosexual groups campaign against legislation forcing insurance companies to cover AIDS, and against medicaid coverage for that disease, I will support the repeal of sodomy laws.

Fair enough. Homosexual advocates damage themselves when they cross the line from adovcating freedom from persecution to demanding special privileges.

I'm against paying for obesity induced injuries too. What we really need is tort reform.

Absolutely.

[bvw]

'Cept that "tort reform" may be just adding more cards to a house of cards. By a-priori limits on what a lawyer and jury can do, liberty suffers -- the jury is the crucible in which the two opponents pour in the mixture of truth . The result is supposed to be Justice, but can't be with the existing widely varying and arbtrary limits on what a lawyer can bring up, so the jury is allowed only the partial truth. Justice isn't served very well, it's half-cooked too many times.

This came about not to greed or liberalism ... but rather because of the low expectations of juries. I'm sorry, but NO system no matter how ingeniously reformed can withstand stupid, nearly amoral (or morally ignorant) juries. A "Jury of Peers" did used to mean men of common sense and moral up-bringing. Now it means any lay-about, wastrel and who-ever the cat can drag in, or couch potato intellects fluffed up by whatever media bias has washed into their minds.

[Jorge]

"As in Clinton-speak...."

Umm no that would be Merriam-Webster’s.

Umm no it wouldn't either.
Nowhere does Merriam-Webster define oral sex as not being sex. That absolutely absurd.

[Jorge]

All sins are equal in your eyes? Murder = idolatry? False witness = Taking the Lords name in vain? Did you drop the Bible on your head?

I never suggested all sins were equal...just that all sins are sin.
Those who ignore some sins while rabidly opposing others are simply hypocrites.

[FreeTally]

The right to privacy is bogus. If it exists, then I won't file my taxes this year.

So, because we have allowed our government to expand and steal more and more of our money, you reject the notion that private actions are just that? You are justifying one violation of rights with another.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Nowhere does Merriam-Webster define oral sex as not being sex. That absolutely absurd.

Stupid is as stupid duz, Forest.

Sex 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females

Sodomy 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

[Clint N. Suhks]

I never suggested all sins were equal...

Yes you did!

Those who ignore some sins while rabidly opposing others are simply hypocrites.

And show me exactly what sins I’m ignoring, hmm…Are you projecting or just making it up?

[weegee]

PING

[Bryan]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This thread has reached 760 posts and it follows all the same tired patterns.