Supreme Court might find time for Texas Sodomy Laws.....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-02 07:16am

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021202-478107.htm

....but not for Dr. Emerson....

High court to rule on sodomy laws

Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 12/2/2002

The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide as early as today whether to revisit its historic 1986 decision allowing states to prosecute homosexuals for sodomy.

The appeal, brought by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, challenges the Texas law barring oral or anal sex between people of the same sex, a distinction Lambda says violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause by officially stigmatizing homosexuals for "loving behavior" that others practice legally.

"Only same-sex couples can run afoul of the Homosexual Conduct Law, which — true to its name — uses the definition of a gay sexual orientation to trigger illegality," said the plea to reverse misdemeanor convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner.

The Texas law "flatly forbids lesbians and gay men from engaging in basic forms of sexual expression that are open to and wholly legal for heterosexuals," Lambda said in its court filings.

Houston prosecutor William J. Delmore III said the "rational basis" test often applied to such court challenges will determine that a state legislature may take biological differences into account and "rationally draw a distinction between two individuals of the same sex performing an act, and two individuals of the opposite sex performing the same act."

He said the charge has rarely, if ever, been prosecuted because most such cases involve public lewdness — which is a Class A misdemeanor, much more serious than the Class C misdemeanor in the Lawrence and Garner cases.

"Every two years at least one bill is filed in the legislature seeking to repeal the statute, and each legislative session the effort to repeal it has failed," Mr. Delmore said.

On June 8, 2000, a three-judge panel of the state District Court of Appeals declared that the law violated the Texas Constitution. That decision was reversed nine months later by the full court.

In its plea to the Supreme Court, Lambda argued that sodomy is widely practiced, citing a 1994 study by University of Chicago researchers who said 79 percent of all men and 73 percent of all women engaged in oral sex, while 26 percent of men and 20 percent of women engaged in anal sex.

The organization, which specializes in issues affecting homosexuals, implored the justices to look beyond the Texas law and use the case to reverse its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case. That 5-4 decision allowed prosecution of homosexuals under Georgia's since-discarded sodomy laws, which covered heterosexuals as well.

Lambda says many other states and the District of Columbia had also changed their stance since then and that only 13 states retain anti-sodomy laws. Nine, including Virginia's, apply to all. Texas and Kansas laws limit the ban to homosexuals, and Missouri and Oklahoma courts exclude consensual heterosexuals from enforcement.

"It's not just a relic on the books," Lambda legal director Ruth E. Harlow said of the 1860 Texas sodomy law, revised in 1973 to exclude heterosexuals.

Ms. Harlow denied that the issue was set up as an intentional test case but said her organization became involved before the men lost their motions to dismiss the case as unconstitutional violations of privacy and equal protection. They pleaded no contest in Houston's criminal court, where each was fined $200 plus $141.25 in court costs.

"It's not like we wanted this case; these fellows really never wanted this to happen to them," she said, recounting the false report to police by neighbor Roger Nance that a "crazy man with a gun" was in Mr.
Lawrence's apartment. Mr. Nance served two weeks in jail for making the false police report.

Deputy Sheriff Joseph Quinn said he entered through an unlocked door and found the men engaged in anal sex. Mr. Garner, now 35, and Mr. Lawrence, now 59, condemned their arrests as "sort of Gestapo."

The men say they were smeared by conviction for an offense involving "moral turpitude," which would require them to register as sex offenders if they move to Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi or South Carolina, and limits their right to work in Texas as an athletic trainer, doctor, registered nurse, speech pathologist, interior designer, bingo operator, school bus driver or liquor salesman.

"By this law, Texas imposes a discriminatory prohibition on all gay and lesbian couples, requiring them to limit their expressions of affection in ways that heterosexual couples, whether married or unmarried, need not," Ms. Harlow said, invoking the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that barred states from outlawing a married couple's contraceptive use.

"Enforcement of such laws involves police tactics, including inspections of the specific physical details of sexual conduct to verify criminal violations, that are repugnant to any system of ordered liberty," she said.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 07:25am

Lambda says many other states and the District of Columbia had also changed their stance since then and that only 13 states retain anti-sodomy laws. Nine, including Virginia's, apply to all. Texas and Kansas laws limit the ban to homosexuals,

That pisses me off more than anything.

and Missouri and Oklahoma courts exclude consensual heterosexuals from enforcement.

This is more than like ly a non-issue. Why would anyone have oral sex without consent!? (Well, we could go into kidnap and rape, but that is a different story entirely)

Second, The "Homosexual Conduct Law"? WTF? They limit gays with a law that clearly shows its intention in the name! Leave it up to Texas to do that sort of thing....

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 07:30am

verilon wrote: This is more than like ly a non-issue. Why would anyone have oral sex without consent!? (Well, we could go into kidnap and rape, but that is a different story entirely)

Except it's the same story - any sexual activity without consent is a form of rape, or at least sexual assault.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 07:34am

innerbrat wrote:
verilon wrote:This is more than like ly a non-issue. Why would anyone have oral sex without consent!? (Well, we could go into kidnap and rape, but that is a different story entirely)
Except it's the same story - any sexual activity without consent is a form of rape, or at least sexual assault.

True. My mistake.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-02 12:04pm

So Shep, you brought this up, what do you think?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-02 12:09pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:So Shep, you brought this up, what do you think?

I think he former title says it all.

I'm all for changing it. What fucking right do a bunch of fundies in the government have to tell consenting adults who they can fuck!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-02 12:14pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:So Shep, you brought this up, what do you think?

I find it interesting they're looking at this case somewhat seriously, but
not Dr. Emerson's case...

I just wish the goddamn Supremes would actually find the balls to RULE
on the 2nd Amendment so we can get this whole charade concerning
the definition of it all over with....they haven't even taken a case
involving it since 1934...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 01:36pm

Shep, please refrain from turning every thread into a complaint about the second amendment.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-02 04:53pm

How does sodomy relate to the second admendment?

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-12-02 06:58pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:How does sodomy relate to the second admendment?

I'm sure there are some people out there who use their guns for things other than shooting....

(And I don't mean as clubs or as bayonet carriers, either....)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-02 08:46pm

You have to wonder, since we have a government that looks down upon hate crime, what about hate law? How can we say prejudiced crime is worse then normal crim, and yet say that we need to have prejudiced law? Would ANYONE tolerate a "Negro Conduct Act" or "Jew Conduct Act"? Fucking hell no. People would be up in arms and were. I thought this country was founded on preservation of personal freedom, where does it say in the constitution that the government has the power to tell people what they can do in their homes? Nowhere. Fucking democracy making it possible for stupid majorities to opress the minority. Ugh.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-02 10:17pm

You think this country was founded on the principle of securing certain rights?!

Hell no...this country was founded upon securing the rights and freedoms of the elite, and needed the poor to do so.

Overall our founding fathers were not really interested in the freedoms of the colonist as much as there were concerned with their own.

We grew into that thought much, much later.

The Mozz · Post by **The Mozz** » 2002-12-03 01:18am

kojikun wrote:You have to wonder, since we have a government that looks down upon hate crime, what about hate law? How can we say prejudiced crime is worse then normal crim, and yet say that we need to have prejudiced law? Would ANYONE tolerate a "Negro Conduct Act" or "Jew Conduct Act"? Fucking hell no. People would be up in arms and were. I thought this country was founded on preservation of personal freedom, where does it say in the constitution that the government has the power to tell people what they can do in their homes? Nowhere. Fucking democracy making it possible for stupid majorities to opress the minority. Ugh.

First off, hi I'm new.. er.. yeah..

Now, as for this post: There is a significant difference between race, creed, sex and sexual orientation. The intent of the law, as many laws, is to regulate the morality of the citizens. As I think someone noted, there are also laws banning anal sex between heterosexuals on some states' books. As far as telling us what we can do in our homes:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'm sure the writers would throw homosexual relationships under "forming a more perfect union" and "promoting the general welfare." Of course, these lines are pure bullshit, but under their code of ethics, it works..

The law itself sucks, but it is based on the morals of rich white men, which are USUALLY (not always, not NEARLY always) based on the Bible. And I know the Bible here is more hated than any tome ever written, but it is the most influential book ever written, and is the basis for much of people's individual morals, especially those in power ^_^;

And damn democracy, especially in a nation more conservative than you, where more than 50% of people are opposed to gay marriage... =/

---

I just showed this post to a friend who visits here, and he said "be ready for flames" .. whee..

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-03 01:22am

Here, here.

Oh, and POKE

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-03 08:27am

On behalf of Verilon....

From http://www.cnn.com

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-12-03 09:00am

.......just what can you say to such gross stupidity as that? 25%!?! *Sighs*

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-12-03 09:05am

The problem wuth that poll is that it is biased. a poll should be conducted randomly. The only people that read those polls. are [eople with a vested interest in reading them. Either gays, or full hate mongers. sorry Verilon

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-12-03 09:07am

Good point.

Where is that poll anyway? I can't find it on their site anywhere.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-19 09:49pm

Thread Necromancy! Now that the supremes looked at teh law.....

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-19 10:13pm

i was wonderin what you were smokin then i read the date. LOL

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-07-19 10:50pm

The sodomizing with guns thread has come back to haunt us all!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-19 11:32pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:The sodomizing with guns thread has come back to haunt us all!

AAAAIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE..........

*runs off into the distance*

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-07-20 12:32am

MKSheppard wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:The sodomizing with guns thread has come back to haunt us all!
AAAAIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE..........

*runs off into the distance*

*Unsure what to think about missing a thread with that subject*

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-07-20 12:35am

Come to think of it, I found it fascinating that the local VRWC didn't scream about states rights over the decision

Man, you should have seen the Freepers though

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-20 01:22am

Hamel wrote:Come to think of it, I found it fascinating that the local VRWC didn't scream about states rights over the decision

Man, you should have seen the Freepers though

Screw States Rights. Just like the Federal Government forced Integration and fair voting for blacks, I agree on what they've done for this. Individual rights go before state rights.