Skip to comments.Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by 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.
Great point bump! Marriage should be a religious, not civil institution.
Thomas' rulings are clear and concise. His judgement eloquent. Occasionally I disagree with him, but he doesn't do the O'Connor "paint and spaghetti thrown at the wall" technique of opinion-writing.
So it's not clear that the Supreme Court would not entertain the equal protection argument for gay marriage in a future case.
Actually this case puts the federal government in your lives. The Court inserting the federal gov't into a matter which should have been up for the people of texas to decide. This decision weakens the ability of a state to govern itself.
Smile -- that is odd! I don't know the laws behind this -- are minors really legally allowed to have sex with each other? Or is it a case where it's illegal, but not prosecuted? (This question does not apply to instances where parents grant their minor children persmission to get married -- that's different.)
Was actually done away with the right way...by Constitutional Amendment - not by the spontaneous ruling/whim of the courts. Slavery was a wrong, but it was Constitutional - so what's your point?
That argument sets a precedent for a huuuuuge number of scary government programs, e.g., it definitely supports forcible vaccination, would probably speed the looming nationwide ban on smoking (second-hand smoke, doncha know), etc., etc.
Sorry, I can't agree with him.
While sounding very learned and official he makes a real hash of Roe v. Wade in the beginning that I find astounding.
How can "privacy" possibly override the right of the unborn child to life? Obviously there's no private right to murder, as the idiocy of Roe v. Wade insists. The rights of the unborn child are clearly being violated - in fact its most critical right, the right to life.
But faggotry is different. In homosexual sex no one's rights are being violated. But Scalia seems to think goobermint has a right to prescribe morality exclusive of rights violations.
Milner v. Apfel, 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality . . . rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms.)
I have a big problem with that.
Decriminalizing homosexual sodomy is quite reasonable to me. State sanction, "hate crime" crapola, anti-discrimination based on sexual preference, etc., etc. is not. This does not have to lead to homosexual "marriage" or celebration of faggotry. All that garbage is repugnant and should not be accepted. It has gone way too far already.
Probably...I guess it would depend how "marriage" was defined. That's why communities that wish to prohibit gay marriage are on the correct legal track by beginning with the definition of "a man and a woman."
Though first, by changing from homosexual to heterosexual they become different acts.
Second, an argument could easily be made that the reason for the acts to be not illegal for heterosexuals was a matter of privacy - since the acts were so similar to mating acts that the attempt to discern between them would be too invasive. That would not apply to homosexuals, since there are no acts approximating mating that they can conduct with such a partner.
You have me confused are we talking mans law or are we talking G-ds law? Using the word "sin" takes it out of the realm of the government judicial system.
I don't think so.
While Scalia is right that the court overturned its own policy regarding stare decisis, the right to privacy rationale was reaffirmed rather strongly. Taken to its logical conclusion, the court could overturn Roe using the reasoning of today's case, but it would still have to overturn the right to privacy which was the cornerstone of this case.
It's a paradox, but it appears that the court values the latter more highly and probably is free to ignore it's own legal arguments in this case. After all, it's only stare decisis.
I personally agree with you -- but what most of us are discussing here is Constitutional process. It's very dangerous to simply bypass the way the Constitution means our republic to work, just because we see a law as unfair. Unfair laws should be pursued at the state house, in congress, and in Constitutional amendments. The only thing standing between our republic and totalitarianism is adherence to the Constitution.