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

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-26 10:47am

WASHINGTON (June 26) - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

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.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against ''deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.''

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law ''demeans the lives of homosexual persons,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

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, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

AP-NY-06-26-03 1020EDT

Victory! The Supreme Court has proven, again, the ultimate superiourity of the American system, and the final ability of our competing branches of government to eliminate the mistakes made by each other! This is quite a tremendous and heartening advance that can only reassure anyone who has a love of liberty.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-26 10:51am

Case name, so I can get the judgement later?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-26 10:55am

...and Texas suddenly was overcome by an eerie silence at the news. After a few moments a single voice was heard. It said "Woman, git my gun."

Seriously, that is good news, since it eliminates one of the more draconian laws in Texas (of all places).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-26 11:02am

Here it is

(The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102).

- It appears to affect sodomy laws in twelve other states, as well.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-26 11:45am

Gee, I wonder who the dissenters were. Could they have been ... William Rehnquist, Anton Scalia and therefore Clarence Thomas?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-06-26 11:47am

Rejoice. This day will be long remembered, by DW at least.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-26 11:47am

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.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-26 11:47am

Durandal wrote:and therefore Clarence Thomas?

*winces* Point. I wasn't expecting him to dissent, and that was hence a bit of a let-down; but then I've already two or three this year, so it was less of a surprise than it could have been.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-06-26 12:18pm

Good. for all those peeps who say that government should get the hell out of our lives, yet want this law, it'll shut em up. That, and it's nice to see that society is accepting it more...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-26 12:19pm

Quite an advancement in the field of liberty. Go SCOTUS.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-06-26 12:29pm

Yay! I declare today to be National Anal Sex day!

Durandal wrote:Gee, I wonder who the dissenters were. Could they have been ... William Rehnquist, Anton Scalia and therefore Clarence Thomas?

Got it in one.

The press conference afterwards was great. The speaking judge (don't recall who) said: "We are announcing the retirement of" (pause for press to lean forward) "the court librarian."
I wonder how the corporate free speech thing will come out...

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-26 12:59pm

It is shaping up to be a major year for the SCOTUS. I am glad that they pretty much wrapped this one up decisivley. The last issue (Afirmitive Action) was confusing due to the yes on one and no on the other.

Anyway, glad that they struck that bullshit down in Tx.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-26 01:54pm

The fundies are already making slippery slopes on this, claiming that it will only lead to incest, man/boy love, and underage sex becomming legalized

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-26 01:59pm

Hamel wrote:The fundies are already making slippery slopes on this, claiming that it will only lead to incest, man/boy love, and underage sex becomming legalized

They were claiming that well before the verdict was rendered. What a shame that The Daily Show is running repeats this week ...

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-06-26 02:32pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Victory! The Supreme Court has proven, again, the ultimate superiourity of the American system, and the final ability of our competing branches of government to eliminate the mistakes made by each other! This is quite a tremendous and heartening advance that can only reassure anyone who has a love of liberty.

Yes, the American system is better because it managed to accomplish something in 2003 that the Canadians did in 1969.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-06-26 04:54pm

1969???

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-26 05:11pm

*happy dance*

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-26 05:26pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Durandal wrote:and therefore Clarence Thomas?
*winces* Point. I wasn't expecting him to dissent, and that was hence a bit of a let-down; but then I've already two or three this year, so it was less of a surprise than it could have been.

You shouldn't be surprised, Thomas has always been big on states' rights (except on federal drug policy, of course).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-06-26 06:35pm

Well, I'm not a big fan of gay man sex, but I am glad that homosexuals are now being treated more fairly under the law.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-26 06:38pm

And the Dutch system did it in the 1800s so FOOEY on YOU SCOTUS. *tsktsk*

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-06-26 06:43pm

Okay, I gettting kinda ticked off about the Texas remarks, it's not like this was something that suddenly was made and immediately accepted, the bill has been trying to get approved since the 1870's IIRC. I'll admit, Texas doesn't have the best politicians, but we have a lot of good people down here.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-06-26 07:12pm

The CNN article screwed up a bit. Montana still has laws on the books making gay sex illegal. Sure the Montana Supreme court over turned the law, but the state legislator has refused to remove it from the books. I wonder if a SCOTUS rulling will get them to remove their heads from their asses and fix the fucking lawbooks.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-26 07:13pm

kojikun wrote:And the Dutch system did it in the 1800s so FOOEY on YOU SCOTUS. *tsktsk*

SCOTUS can't do a damned thing until an appeal comes up to them.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-26 07:20pm

This should make every Texan that isn't a cow happy.

Get it?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-26 07:22pm

That was...twisted...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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

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