Replies

"In through the out door" -- hilarious! Yes, heterosexual couples do this as well -- I thought the court would strike down only laws where heterosexual and homosexual couples were treated differently in this regard (e.g., sodomy is legal for heterosexuals, but illegal for homosexuals), based on equal protection.

Although I personally don't think government should spend time/resources regulating consensual activities behind closed doors, Constitutionally this should probably be a state issue (again, as long as it doesn't violate equal protection -- if sodomy is illegal, it should be illegal for all).

Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.

Remember that sodomy also includes oral sex under many sodomy statutes. Some states' statutes, including Louisiana's (I know because I used to live there), also apply to such relations between heterosexual couples. (Too bad Mr Clinton never took Miss Lewinsky with him to New Orleans. I'd trust Cajun jurors more than the US Senate for a fair impeachment trial.)

Let me add that as a Texan, I'm not too pleased that activist judges have invoked the Fourteenth Amendment in a case which should've been judged on the Tenth Amendment. Today's majority opinion and Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion rely on two separate clauses emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment; the former is based on due process, the latter is based on equal protection. The Court's incessant invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- which was also raised in the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case -- is a massive loophole that liberal appelants are using at every turn with great success (thanks to activist judges like Mr Kennedy).

Justice Scalia hit the nail on the head in his dissent, writing:

Having decided that it need not adhere to stare decisis [i.e., letting previous decisions stand (following citations of Casey)], the Court still must establish that Bowers was wrongly decided and that the Texas statute, as applied to petitioners, is unconstitutional.

Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to "liberty" under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim...

Justice Scalia also warns that Justice O'Connor's consenting opinion "leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples" as she "argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor." The majority decision also leaves an opening (I sure do hate using that phrase when discussing sodomy).

Now that they've overruled the wishes of the Texas electorate, I hope Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Stevens will soon retire.

Let's be clear. Not only gay couples engage in sodomy... I know of many hetero couples who do as well- and enjoy it.

Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.

Don't forget, anti-sodomy laws didn't just apply to anal sex, but oral sex as well. In 4 of the 13 states that had/have such laws, they only aply to same sex couples (Texas, the state in question in this case, being one). The other 9 prohibited anla/oral sex for all couples. Lots of guys will be glad to know their wives/girlfriends can polish their knobs without breaking th law now.

IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples.