Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

[jethropalerobber]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON - 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.

[aristeides]

But why does whether an act is consensual or not serve to determine whether a law against it is constitutional or not?

[Dog Gone]

I expected this ruling, but not on these grounds. I thought the law would be ruled unconstitutional under the rationale of equal protection. The Texas law applied only to homosexuals, but heterosexuals could engage in the same acts without it being illegal.

But the fact that the court based the ruling on the "constitutional right to privacy", rather than equal protection is troubling.

It reaffirms that constitutional right that isn't visible in the words that were written by our Founders. If anything, this reaffirms Roe v. Wade, which was based on the same concept.

I'm not nearly as bothered by the ruling than by the legal rational used to get there. This has vast implications, I believe, although I haven't had the opportunity to read the case yet.

[ellery]

I for one am in favor of multiple husbands... One to dance with One to fix things One to talk to One to shop with And one for sex ;)

and one to cook for you!

[aristeides]

Great quote from the Scalia dissent: "To tell the truth, it does not surprise me, and should surprise no one, that the Court has chosen today to revise the standards of stare decisis set forth in Casey. It has thereby exposed Casey's extraordinary deference to precedent for the result-oriented expedient that it is."

Thus the stage has been set for the overturning of Roe.

[jayef]

That is not the purpose of the law. Sorry! You're just flat wrong!

[spunkets]

I should add to clarify, that the right to privacy can not override law, except where that law is a direct violation of that right. ie. a law that requires folks to submit to residential searches. That's what Thomas was getting at in his short addendum to Scalia's dissent. I haven't seen that yet, but I'm sure that's what Scalia will say also.

[Taxbilly]

"No, that was one of the main issues: in Texas sodomy was legal between a man and a woman, but illegal between two people of the same sex. However, the court seemingly did not overturn the law on this equal protection basis."

But if this is based on the ever elusive unwritten constitutional right to privacy how do you maintain that a child and an adult do not have that same right to violate the law as long as their doing it behind closed doors?

[billbears]

Where's the 10th Amendment?

Which Amendment is that one again? I don't seem to remember which one that is? Oh, that's ancient history. Haven't had a Tenth Amendment since oh, about 1865. As I've said elsewhere the Republic is now officially dead, welcome to the Empire

[lepton]

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons,"

So do their acts...

[Ohioan]

The doors are now open for bigamy, prostitution, and incest! Hooray! I can hardly wait to tell my sister!

Actually, you have picked offenses, which historically have been considered far, far less egregious. Bigamy--that is what we would call bigamy--is perfectly legal in many societies. Prostitution always carried a stigma, but was legal in most societies--American included--up until the beginning of the 20th Century, when it was outlawed so that the Police could force health checkups on the girls.

Incest, of course, is differently defined in different States and cultures. While I know of no society where wedding a parent is accepted, the Greek dynasty in Egypt--Cleopatra--accepted brother sister nuptials as a norm. Of course, I guess on the last point, I have made no point; because the Greeks also accepted Homosexuality for long periods. But it is certainly a more serious matter than bigamy or prostitution. (And more deviant, still, than incest.)

I have not read the Court's decision; so I will not go any further. It sounds as though it leaves the door open for prosecution of people who do not keep their deviant conduct private. And that, after all, is the real crux of the moral political dilemma. Just about every State has its own equivalent of the 4th Amendment. Privacy rights are usually being protected, except under very unusual circumstances. So this may do little, if it is confined to people who sincerely seek to keep their actions private; but it does highlight, once more, how important it is that we keep Leftists off of the Federal Bench.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[OREALLY]

I have a gay homosexual step-son that I love dearly, we have a close respectfull relationship.
I have 3 young grandson's in boy scouts...and I am real angry about what is going on there...
This issue affects me personally...I like the dissenting justices comments which reflect my own opinion.

[jayef]

Your hatred is just beautiful. God loves you! God hates fags! That's the ticket.

[jde1953]

"Nope. The precedent will help the court force state legalization of bestiality and other deviant sex acts as well, not to mention prostitution."

Too late. Bestiality in private is legal in Texas. See section 21.07 at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0002100.html

[Clint N. Suhks]

Slippery slope for consensual incest and bestiality, I mean sex with personal property. Arguably NO different.

[Taxbilly]

In the first case, it was consensual, but not legal. In the latter, it is illegal and also by definition non-consensual.

The age of consent is arbitrary as proven by the differences in state laws and national laws.

[ellery]

Yeah, you're right. We know that some things that go on behind closed doors will always be regulated/prohibited (murder, etc.)...so there needs to be a coherent standard for what behind-closed-doors activites should be regulated, and what activities should not. Right now, it seems to be up to judges' whims: if the standard is victimless activites by consenting adults, then drugs should be legalized, too, and prostitution, and on and on. But that's clearly NOT the standard across the board.

That's why we ought to return to fundamentals: all these issues should be the province of the states, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Of course, that will never happen.

[spunkets]

THat's the way those guys operate. They have visions and whatever they can do to transform reality into those visions, they will do. Hence the long passage through rambling rubbish.

[lepton]

Yet another reason why we need to make sure we get (and keep) a larger Senate majority in 2004 so we can get some REAL conservative justices on the bench instead of the milquetoast liberal justices put on there by both Democrap and previous Repulican administrations.

Conservative/liberal? How about just "literate"?

[Diamond]

How many homo acts did the law stop?

How many homo acts did early American colonial laws against such behavior stop? I don't know, but the notion that Tony Kennedy and four other Federal judges can dictate suddenly after over 200 years that such laws are unconstitutional is the real irony of the celebration of this decision as a victory of "Freedom" and a blow against "Big Government". The Constitution has longed ceased to have any meaning to those who wish to be enslaved by a triumvirate of five federal judges.

Cordially,

[lepton]

But guess what? Even God Almighty gave man free will to choose life or death. God doesn't stop them, who and why should the government?

Wow...sophistry.