Posted on 12/10/2002 11:21:41 AM PST by Liz
Like whist, whilst, and self-abuse, the word sodomy has an old-fashioned ring to it. You don't even see it alluded to much anymore, except in punning tabloid headlines about the situation in Iraq. But it—or its kissin' cousin, the nearly as archaic-sounding "deviate sexual intercourse"—can be found in the criminal codes of thirteen states of the Union, where it is punishable by penalties ranging from a parking-ticket-size fine to (theoretically) ten years in prison.
Even at this late date, many people are vague about just exactly what sodomy is. Montesquieu defined it as "the crime against nature," which is not especially helpful. Blackstone called it "the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast," which gets us a little further, but not much. Back in the U.S.A., the statute books tend to be franker. Some states bring animals into the picture, some don't. The Texas Legislature's definition is nonzoological.
SKIP THIS IF EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OFFENDS. According to Section 21.01 of the Texas Penal Code (readers of delicate sensibilities may at this point wish to skip down a few lines), " 'Deviate sexual intercourse' means: (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object."
RESUME READING HERE What the Lone Star State does and does not view as some kinda deviated preversion became of national interest last week, when the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Lawrence v. Texas. The Lawrence of the case is John G. Lawrence, fifty-nine years old, of Houston, who, on the evening of September 17, 1998, was in his apartment with a guest, Tyron Garner, who is thirty-five. Texas got involved when police, having been tipped off by a neighbor that a "weapons disturbance" was in progress, busted down the door. (The tip was a deliberate lie on the part of the neighbor, who was later convicted of filing a false report.)
What the officers found Lawrence and Garner doing is really none of our business, any more than it was any of Texas's; suffice it to say that it was consensual, nonviolent, and noise-free. The two men were arrested, jailed overnight, and eventually fined two hundred dollars each. They appealed, a three-judge panel of a district appeals court reversed their conviction, the full nine-judge appeals court reversed the reversal, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to do any more reversing. And so to Washington.
The statute under which Lawrence and Garner were convicted, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, is officially known as the Homosexual Conduct Law. Ironically, this statute was a product of the progressive mood of the early nineteen-seventies. In most of the states that still criminalize sodomy, it doesn't matter, legally, whether a couple engaging in behavior (A), above, consists of two men, two women, or one of each.
That's how it was in Texas, too, until 1974. In that bell-bottomed year, the Texas Legislature made heterosexual sodomy legal, but it couldn't quite bring itself to do the same for gays. The result is that Texas is now one of only four states (the others being Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) where it is a crime for gays to please each other in ways that are perfectly legal for straights. The panel that overturned the conviction saw this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The full state court disagreed. Rather, confirming what Anatole France called "the majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges," the court pointed out that in Texas homosexuality is illegal for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. No discrimination there.
According to the Times's Linda Greenhouse, the Supreme Court probably wouldn't have taken the case unless a majority had already decided to "revisit" Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld the constitutionality of Georgia's sodomy law.
The decision in that case—by a vote of five to four, as with so many of the Court's clunkers—was an embarrassment. Both its language and its reasoning were shockingly coarse. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White defined "the issue"—leeringly, sarcastically, obtusely, and repeatedly—as "whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy," or protects "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," or extends "a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy." Any such claim, he added, "is, at best, facetious."
Caricaturing the well-established constitutional right to privacy in this nyah-nyah way is like dismissing the First Amendment as being all about the right to make doo-doo jokes. It was left to the author of the dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, to point out, quoting Justice Brandeis, that the case was really "about 'the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,' namely 'the right to be let alone.' "
Justice Lewis Powell, who tipped the balance in Bowers v. Hardwick, expressed regret years later that he had voted the way he did. He's gone now. John Paul Stevens, who dissented, William Rehnquist, now Chief Justice, and Sandra Day O'Connor are the only holdovers from the Court that upheld Georgia's sodomy law (which, by the way, was thrown out, a few months after Lawrence and Garner were arrested in Houston, by Georgia's supreme court, for violating Georgia's constitution).
Half the states that had sodomy laws when Bowers was decided have got rid of them, and those that still have them seldom enforce them. But when they are enforced the consequences can be more onerous than it may appear. Lawrence and Garner aren't just out four hundred bucks; they may also be banned from certain professions, from nursing to school-bus driving, and are deprived of other privileges denied to persons who have been convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude."
Anyway, sodomy laws are a standing insult to, among others, millions of respectable citizens who happen to be gay. They are an absurd anachronism and an obvious violation of the right to privacy. Whatever they may have represented in Montesquieu's day, or even Byron White's, in 2002 they are nothing but an expression of bigotry. If the Supreme Court takes a truly honest look at Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, it will surely agree with the view of Dickens's Mr. Bumble: this is one case where, at bottom, "the law is a ass."
--SNIP -- Clink on source link for rest of story (go to next)
§ 4-1. Common law declared to be in force.
Keep swinging the baton. You obviously don't have the mental acumen to do anything else. That's okay, of course---the world needs ditchdiggers too.
Yes, especially if you try and balance the load by having those patented "orgies" "you people" are famous for having. Should that occur, the GWALW will be cardinal's robe red.
Blacks at one time were not accepted in America (except as slaves) and I believe both slavers and later segregationists used Biblical passages to justify it.
to force acceptance of their preversions on society at large
How? at gunpoint?
by DEMANDING equal rights with normal coouples in marriages
For legal secular purposes, how does this harm anyone? Churches do not have to bless gay 'unions'.
opportunity to proselytize their life styles in public...
It's called free speech. We don't have to listen. The only place where I think this should be abrogated is in schools. Teaching preteens about "golden showers" and crap like that is wrong.
Yes they are. The opposition against gays stems from religious faith. The oppsosition against Blacks at the time stemmed from religious faith. The Bible says slavery is ok. Therefore it must be ok. The Bible says sodomy is evil, therefore it must be evil.
If a homosexual couple wishes to form a legal partnership, the legal mechanism for doing so already exists.
They do?
But since what they are really striving for is social approbation and acceptance, they have made an issue of attempting to equivilize their relationship with a marriage.
They can try. It probably will not happen.
Its wrong because it advocates an immoral and perverted lifestyle...Does this mean society has to tolerate public demonstrations in support of practises like prostitution, sado-masochism, bestiality and other similar activities?
Does society have to tolerate public demonstrations by the KKK, Black Panthers, NRA, Million Mom March? Just because you and I disagree does not mean they cannot speak out. They have a constitutional right to do so.
But their personal sexual practises are [I agree], and consequently society has a right and responsiblity to restrict the public practise and proselytization of these practises, especially to young children and those who do not choose to view them as they consider them offensive.
It's still free speech. If a gay man wants to shout "I'm here, and I'm queer." from the rooftops, it is his Constitutional right. The government cannot stop him. The government can and will stop him and 10 of his buddies from having a circle jerk on the town square. But the government can and will stop a couple from having heterosex on the town square.
The bible does deal with slavery by telling slave owners how they should treat their slaves, not in saying that 'thou shalt have slaves'. By the way, Israelite slaves were of two kinds:
1. individuals who sold themselves into slavery because there was no such thing as bankruptcy court back then, or
prisoners of war.
It was not a sin to own or not own slaves. What as a sin was to own slaves for improper reasons and treat them improperly.
Same gender sex is a sin. Period.
And in that lies the problem for me. How can our Holy Creator bless the ownership of another human, who was created each and every one of us in His image with free Will condone such a monstrous thing? A well-treated slave is still a slave.
When one is owned by another they are deprived of life. Maybe not the physical aspect but of the essence of life.
Could it be perhaps that some parts of the Bible are wrong? That the words were written contemporarily and conformed to the culture of the day? I don't know. I don't have the answers.
Quite right, and some cultures like many Eastern ones were indifferent to homosexuals. They are even indifferent to Pedophelia (sp?) [I'm not saying this is a good thing, either].
Extracting portions of the Bible to justiy an ancient and evil practise made as much sense as using the Bible to justify multiple marriages, stoning witches, not eating pork, etc.
But the Bible does not condemn slavery or multiple marriages (at least in OT). Just as slave owners are reaching, I believe that some on this board are reaching for advocating death to gays.
They way people like us go against extremist positions is not to restrict the First Amendment but to educate, educate, educate. Look how more people turn up to protest the KKK than support it.
... Because society has a right to protect public morals ...
You're right. We are just differing on what the morals are. I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to have to learn about all sorts of aberrant sexual practices in school. I wouldn't want to see anyone having sex in public (straight or gay). But society has to treat it's citizens equally. If the government allows straight couples certain benefits it should allow the same for gays.
There are a lot of things about the way many gays act that disturb me. Sex w/ multiple partners, weird sexual practices, etc. suggest gay people probably have a lot of spiritual/mental problems. I do not envy them in any way. However, Conservatives screaming to the rooftops about how gays are living in sin annoys me more because none of us are close to perfect people. Jesus himself did say, "Remove the plank from your own eye..." Maybe God made them that way and what's in the Bible is wrong. The slavery thing was wrong. Maybe Gays are living in sin. I really don't know. But I for one will show them compassion rather than scream, "You're going to hell!". We should concentrate on making ourselves better people and bring others to holiness through our own examples.
Just my humble opinion. :)
Dear Neo-cons....stay out of my private life. Thank you.
Yeah, man, I hear you: The Neo-cons are Our Misfortune! (Die Neo-Cons Sind Unser Unglueck!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.