Supreme Court strikes down Tx sodomy law in 6-3 ruling.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-26 07:41pm

Good. I'm not gay and I don't intend to engage in sodomy, but a ban on sex between consenting adults is wrong.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-06-26 07:48pm

jegs2 wrote:One wonders how an anti-sodomy law could be enforced (or proven) in the first place, seeing as how the sexual behavior in question is between two consenting adults.

Some dickhead neighbors notice or suspect their gay neighbors are having sex. They call the police and say their neighbors are making a lot of noise. The police come over to tell them to quiet down and instead find that they were having sex and arrest them (if they're evil).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-26 07:49pm

Though to be honest I'm a little suprised that some of the posters here feel as they do. After all, the Constitution doesn't actually give anyone the right to privacy unless you really stretch for it and this steps on the toes of states rights to make their own laws, thus setting yet another example about how the federal government is nullifying the will of the states on the matter. People are being, dare I say it, down right liberal on this issue.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 07:59pm

I actually agree with you on this, Gil, and I suspect that's the reason Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist voted against it.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-26 08:06pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Though to be honest I'm a little suprised that some of the posters here feel as they do. After all, the Constitution doesn't actually give anyone the right to privacy unless you really stretch for it and this steps on the toes of states rights to make their own laws, thus setting yet another example about how the federal government is nullifying the will of the states on the matter. People are being, dare I say it, down right liberal on this issue.

No, the Constitution does not give a right to privacy. But it doesn't allow the government to create a lesser class of people either. Descrimination under the law if illegal. Furthermore it doesn't allow for the police to bust down the wrong freaking door and charge people for what it found illegaly. There is that whole illegal searches and siezures thing. This Texas case is a clear violation. Regardless of privacy issues the police knocked down the wrong fucking door and what they found should not have been usable in any court of law.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 08:12pm

No, the Constitution does not give a right to privacy. But it doesn't allow the government to create a lesser class of people either. Descrimination under the law if illegal.

No, sexual orientation is not currently protected by federal law.

Furthermore it doesn't allow for the police to bust down the wrong freaking door and charge people for what it found illegaly. There is that whole illegal searches and siezures thing.

It does, however, allow for someone to legally turn in someone who is possibly guilty of the horrible crime of sodomy. Presumbably they could get a search warrant after that and find the evidence they need to convict. The Texas case probably is, as you say a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, but there is still no legal basis for throwing out all anti-sodomy law. Hey, I know it sucks, but any federal system is going to produce things you disagree with.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-26 09:01pm

Alyeska wrote:No, the Constitution does not give a right to privacy. But it doesn't allow the government to create a lesser class of people either. Descrimination under the law if illegal. Furthermore it doesn't allow for the police to bust down the wrong freaking door and charge people for what it found illegaly. There is that whole illegal searches and siezures thing. This Texas case is a clear violation. Regardless of privacy issues the police knocked down the wrong fucking door and what they found should not have been usable in any court of law.

Hey, I'm just saying that I'm suprised that our right-wing members would be in favor of this, for the details that Durran and I listed. Had some other states law been with the same amount of Constitution stretching, these same people would be mad because it was squishing state's rights and calling it liberal bullshit.

Me, I think that the anti-sodomy laws should go the way of the dinosaur and support the decision if not the method, but then again, in alot of peoples eyes, I'm as liberal as a half billion dollar milk farmers subsidy.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-26 09:13pm

Howedar wrote:Good. I'm not gay and I don't intend to engage in sodomy, but a ban on sex between consenting adults is wrong.

I'm sure your girlfriend is disappointed, as technically, oral sex is also sodomy.

Minnesota had an unpopular and virtually unenforced sodomy law that banned all oral and anal sex, both hetero- and homosexual, on the books until it was finally stricken in an appeal to the state supreme court two years ago. One of the more pleasant effects of the Ventura Administration, as the removal of that law was one of then-Candidate Ventura's campaign promises five years ago.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-26 09:44pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Hey, I'm just saying that I'm suprised that our right-wing members would be in favor of this, for the details that Durran and I listed. Had some other states law been with the same amount of Constitution stretching, these same people would be mad because it was squishing state's rights and calling it liberal bullshit.

Me, I think that the anti-sodomy laws should go the way of the dinosaur and support the decision if not the method, but then again, in alot of peoples eyes, I'm as liberal as a half billion dollar milk farmers subsidy.

Gil, are you trying to pick a fight? The right of the Federal Government to require the states to obey constitutional law is pretty fucking clearly established, or else we wouldn't have a country but a mini-UN.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment, Gil, Tenth Amendment. And, as it happens, the right to be protected from an unreasonable intrusion of government in your home is constitutionally enshrined, and trumps any reservation of powers to the States.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 09:54pm

Tenth Amendment, Gil, Tenth Amendment. And, as it happens, the right to be protected from an unreasonable intrusion of government in your home is constitutionally enshrined, and trumps any reservation of powers to the States.

That is the most unique reading of the Tenth Amendment I have ever heard. Using a pillar of states' rights to argue against states' rights.

The Tenth Amendment says nothing about rights; only powers. One thing that the Tenth Amendment was not intended to do, nor can it be read to do, is empower the federal government; the rest of the Constitution does that. The Tenth Amendment only strengthens my case; anything not delegated to the federal government, it cannot legally do. And last I checked, the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any power relating to governing sexual behavior.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-26 10:03pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Gil, are you trying to pick a fight? The right of the Federal Government to require the states to obey constitutional law is pretty fucking clearly established, or else we wouldn't have a country but a mini-UN.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment, Gil, Tenth Amendment. And, as it happens, the right to be protected from an unreasonable intrusion of government in your home is constitutionally enshrined, and trumps any reservation of powers to the States.

Except it isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither privacy nor sexual orientation are guarenteed or protected by the Constitution. What the cops in the particular scenario did can be considered unreasonable search and seizure, ergo in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the anti-sodomy laws themselves aren't. That's why the anti-sodomy laws have lasted so long, because there is nothing in the Constitution that makes them illegal, as unfortunate as that is.

Unless you can indicate where the right to privacy or sexual orientation is guarenteed in the Constitution, of course. Then the anti-sodomy laws really would be unconstitutional without majorly reaching. Which is why I'm a little suprised you are in favor of this ruling, since as a libertarian, I'd expect you to be opposed the the Federal government tanking the Will of the State on legal matters.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 10:06pm

since as a libertarian, I'd expect you to be opposed the the Federal government tanking the Will of the State on legal matters.

Varies among libertarians. Some libertarians are hardcore states'-righters, no questions asked. Others advocate federal superiority in areas outlined by the Constitution, and by court decisions (adherence to the traditional federal system, in other words).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-26 10:11pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Except it isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither privacy nor sexual orientation are guarenteed or protected by the Constitution. What the cops in the particular scenario did can be considered unreasonable search and seizure, ergo in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the anti-sodomy laws themselves aren't. That's why the anti-sodomy laws have lasted so long, because there is nothing in the Constitution that makes them illegal, as unfortunate as that is.

Unless you can indicate where the right to privacy or sexual orientation is guarenteed in the Constitution, of course. Then the anti-sodomy laws really would be unconstitutional without majorly reaching. Which is why I'm a little suprised you are in favor of this ruling, since as a libertarian, I'd expect you to be opposed the the Federal government tanking the Will of the State on legal matters.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is now a judicially accepted part of our body of law that the Fourth Amendment implies a right to privacy, which is reasonable. In particular, due to the Fourth Amendment, one can argue that such a law as that of Texas could be unenforceable--and thus that laws applicable to the realm of the home are, in general, constitutional violations due to intent.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 10:14pm

It is now a judicially accepted part of our body of law that the Fourth Amendment implies a right to privacy, which is reasonable. In particular, due to the Fourth Amendment, one can argue that such a law as that of Texas could be unenforceable--and thus that laws applicable to the realm of the home are, in general, constitutional violations due to intent.

Assuming they could enforce the law in question without violating the Fourth, which is certainly a possibility, they have a way around it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-26 10:25pm

What Durron said. The Fourth doesn't make the anti-sodomy laws unenforceable, just a bit more difficult. For one thing, sex doesn't always take place in ones home and second, if the police have a reason to think that some form of sodomy is going on (say, thanks to a nosey neighbor), they can make out a no-knock warrant and catch the people in the act, legally.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 10:27pm

And the Fourth Amendment really doesn't imply a right to privacy, anyway. It just guarantees freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures," without really telling the states under what circumstances they can and can't search. It is quite difficult to apply the Fourth Amendment to the states at all, since it was originally not meant to apply to the states (upheld by John Marshall, overturned via the Fourteenth, enforced within the last century).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 01:14am

Iceberg wrote: I'm sure your girlfriend is disappointed, as technically, oral sex is also sodomy.

Go to hell. Go to hell and die.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-27 01:32am

Howedar wrote:
Iceberg wrote: I'm sure your girlfriend is disappointed, as technically, oral sex is also sodomy.
Go to hell. Go to hell and die.

You're welcome.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-27 02:09am

I don't think this hypothetical girlfriend of mine cares much for hypothetical sodomy.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2003-06-27 02:24am

Oh great, now there's going to be rampant buttsex taking place on every Texas street corner!

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-27 03:17am

Jesus Christ, do you we really need the Supreme Court to okay butt-sex? For Christ's sake, let's just let people live how they want to live.

I saw Fallwell today on the news say, "what's next? Beastiality?" Fallwell and his slippery slope fallacy can kiss my ass.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-27 03:23am

Superman wrote: I saw Fallwell today on the news say, "what's next? Beastiality?" Fallwell and his slippery slope fallacy can kiss my ass.

What makes that doubly-amusing is that beastiality is already legal in Texas.

nechronius · Post by **nechronius** » 2003-06-27 05:15am

One perfect example where the slippery slope argument is quite laughable. Two consenting adults doesn't lead to a non-consenting party victimized without their knowledge.

If one man wants to eat a steak dinner with all the trimmings out of another man's anus, then it's all good as long as anybody who doesn't want to be exposed to it doesn't have to be.

Of course if they petitioned a state government that it was performing art and they wanted to do it in a public forum, then I might have a particular objection to it, even if everybody else didn't.

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-06-27 05:46am

Hurrah for Texas!

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-06-27 05:55am

Superman wrote:Jesus Christ, do you we really need the Supreme Court to okay butt-sex? For Christ's sake, let's just let people live how they want to live.

I saw Fallwell today on the news say, "what's next? Beastiality?" Fallwell and his slippery slope fallacy can kiss my ass.

I think he was just being hopefull.