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 In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.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.
... demonstrating once more the 'propping up' that that practice required in the 'popular' press at the time ...
I happen to like deviant sex as does my wife.
Buzz
Get a copy of "Stiff" by Mary Roach.
It's currently on the Amazon non fiction best seller list.
So9
I argee completely.
This is bad Constitutional Law striking down a stupid State Law.
So9
But you are missing the point which is that the Supremes can turn any language on it's head on any basis which seems "compelling" to them and thus amendments no longer offer us any protection. They are USURPERS, plain and simple.
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Notice wife is singular.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Matthew 19:5 - And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Matthew 19:6 - Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mark 10:8 - And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
1 Corinthians 6:16 - What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Ephesians 5:31 - For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
It's true that some of the Biblical patriarchs had multiple wives. But in almost every case the bible points out the problems that occurred as a result. Both the long history of Arab/Israeli wars as well as the destruction of Solomon's temple can be linked back to the problem of multiple wives.
I'll skip belaboring the point here. Reading of that text could be interpeted that way, but others allowed for multiple wives throughout the Bible.
However, just because it is believed immoral by some religions does not give you a right to codify it into law.
And for the record : Anyone who wants two wives needs his head examined.
The immorality of multiple wives was indeed tolerated. Laws were even prescribed to handle it. The same way divorce was tolerated and laws were prescribed to handle that.
But the Bible is clear. It's only because of the hardness of men's hearts, that it was tolerated.
Communities have that right to codify it and anything else their citizens desire into law. The only exceptions are those specified protected rights that the states agreed to allow the Federal Government to insure for all it's citizens when they joined the Union.
Texas was well within their rights. It was the Supreme court that did not have the right to interfere with Texas law.
See : 14th Amendment.
Just in case you missed it, the Bible isn't the supreme law of the US.
And like I said, I'm not exactly a polygamist.
You'd have to pay me. A lot. And arrange a generous (solo) vacation package.
No doubt. What influence it had appears to be waning fast. But it is where the majority of our citzenry to the extent that they get moral education get it from.
Strange how every single state had sodomy laws on its books at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, and not one of the framers of the amendment believed it to prevent states from having such laws. I guess O'Conner and the rest of the bunch think they know the meaning of the 14th Amendment better than the very same people who wrote it and ratified it.
Before a state is admitted to the union, Congress must approve its constitution. One of the conditions for approval for Utah was that it outlaw polygamy. Congress was well within its rights under the U.S. constitution to make such a demand.
Besides, Utah has been doing a pretty good job prosecuting polygamists, so the issue of the Feds coming in is moot.
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.