[B Knotts]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

The top court's decision overturned a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by two men who were caught engaging in an illegal sex act.

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.

[Pyro7480]

I guess Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia were the only ones dissenting.

[Aeronaut]

"demeans the lives of homosexual persons,"

Just my opinion, but I think they do that to themselves by their perversion.

[The Red Zone]

deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved.

[rockinonritalin]

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

From what I've read thus far on this thread, this is not the basis that the SC used to strike down the law. Wasn't it a right to privacy and not equal protection?

[jgrubbs]

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

homosexuality demeans the lives of the persons.

[Amelia]

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.

It's always seemed to me that it would be a bit sticky for states to enforce such laws without violating the 4th Amendment.

[rintense]

My question is, how did the cops know these guys were having sex? Were they in their own house?

Most gays believe they have the *right* to have sex anywhere, not just in the privacy of their own home. That assumption is completely wrong. What you do in your own home is your business, but don't even think that means you have the right to have sex in a gay club, fitness center, public bathroom, etc. Dime to donuts they think this ruling will allow them this 'freedom' to have sex wherever they want. But having sex wherever you want whenever you want is NOT a right. Period.

[GreatOne]

Absolutely revolting. What about stare decisis, which Justice Souter said was so important in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Oh, forgot - stare decisis is only for liberal scumbag decisions.

Where in the freaking constitution does it say that we can't have laws which "demean" people? People who engage in behavior which has (or, at least until know, had), with rare exceptions, been universally condemned for 5000 years deserve no special protection from having their feelings hurt (poor widdle butt-plugging babies).

In the next 10 years, we will see the following: sodomite marriage, marriage between siblings, and the lowering of the age of consent.

I can't say anything else without cursing violently - I'm so damn angry!

[goldstategop]

You can use similiar language to invalidate Federal and State DOMA's. They too are facially discriminatory. It won't be long before the SCOTUS apes Canada by declaring laws confining marriage to a man and a woman ipso facto, violate the 14th Amendment. This is just the foot in the door the heterophobes have been waiting for. Don't think the implications of today's ruling sanctioning gay sex in one's bedroom are not confined to the larger issues at stake. Justice Breyer's decision can and will be used as a battering ram against the remaining vestiges of traditional morality on the grounds its demeans some minority group. After for liberals, its all about feelings, not the rule of law and if y'all liked Monday's SCOTUS decision sanctioning soft bigotry, you'll love it when one day the Court decides marriage no longer means what it now means.

[First Amendment]

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

What demeans them is their perverted "sexual" practices. Legalizing it is like putting a pretty ribbon on a pile of dogs**t.

This is a very dark day for the US.