Posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:35 AM PDT by traditionalist
The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.
Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.
The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.
Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."
The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, have retreated from public view. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.
The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.
As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.
The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.
Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case — Bowers v. Hardwick — as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.
A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.
That you combine Polygamy with this is very telling of your character.
I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (especially on the same plane with necrophilia). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)
That said, my standard disclaimer : Polygamy is its own punishment. Any man dumb enough to marry more than one woman deserves what he gets.
Read lots of 700 Club books, don't we?
LOL. Decided by you, I suppose.
Might want to ask for a refund. At least for the history classes.
Everyone thinks that Justice Thomas is opposed to changing the law based on moral grounds. In other words, they think he is opposed to granting a "right" for homosexual sex. But if you read his dissenting opinion, he states right at the beginning that he thinks the Texas law was "silly" (his words) that Texas should repeal the law, and that law enforcement should have higher priorities than trying to enforce the law.
Justice Thomas is not on the side of the "moralists" in this issue.
This *is* silly - how often are litering laws enforced (I see beer bottles by the side of the road on a regular although not frequent basis) YET I would not repeal them or this particular law (as it acts as a disincentive to deviant sexual behavior) ...
I think the 'average man' doesn't understand the reason 'for law' (in general) and the purpose of having 'laws on the books' in order to guide society ...
In what state, any state, is Necrophilia legal?!?!
I can't believe that for a second.
But leave it to the queers and the other degenerate filth behind this court decision today, and you can bet that if it isn't legal, it will be soon.
NOR can we apparently really 'set' speed limits and achieve any sort of compliance ... so what is the recommended course of action?
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.