Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

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

[ellery]

Not legalize, but decriminalize. I am opposed to govt 'permission. The whole gay marriage thing would not exist if it wernt for the govt granting licensese for people to get married. License implies permission.

Great point bump! Marriage should be a religious, not civil institution.

[NewJerseyRepublican]

"Though oddly enough, many states consider minors able to consent to have sex with other minors."

And, oddly enough, it's the most conservative states that usually have the lowest ages of consent...

[lepton]

I respect this guy more and more. I know many liberals accuse him of just being Scalia's house-n*gger..

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.

[aristeides]

If I read Kennedy's opinion correctly, he doesn't say that the Texas law could not also have been overturned on the equal protection ground, merely that the court chose to confront the due process argument instead (because deciding the case on equal protection grounds would not make clear that sodomy laws were constitutional if they prohibited both homo- and heterosexual sodomy)>

So it's not clear that the Supreme Court would not entertain the equal protection argument for gay marriage in a future case.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Sounds about right. Sodomy laws are pointlessly unenforcable in the first place. Anything that takes the federal government out of our private lives is fine by me.

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.

[aristeides]

Limbaugh is making your point right now.

[ellery]

Though oddly enough, many states consider minors able to consent to have sex with other minors.

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.)

[lepton]

Yeah. It was a real bummer when slavery was done away with.

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?

[ellery]

I'm surprised no one made an argument against legalizing sodomy for medical reasons and that it has (and still is) the catalyst for AIDS.

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.

[longtermmemmory]

look for an STD occurance spike in six months.

[tlb]

Literally, different strokes for different folks.

You'd think this site more then most would be sympathtic to adults being allowed to live as they wish in their own home. I'm content to let God to decide what is and isn't a sin and deal with the sinners.

[lepton]

Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument?

[NewJerseyRepublican]

"...are minors really legally allowed to have sex with each other?"

In most states, yes. For example, New Jersey sets the age of consent at 16, and has provisions to allow even a 19 year old to have sex with minors, provided it not exceed four years difference, I believe. If you are really interested in state laws regarding ages of consent and the legality of gay sex, ageofconsent.com is a good resource.

[lepton]

Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument [to be made]?

[jimt]

Oh really? ... go read what Justice Scalia has to say about the monumental paradigm shift this wrongheaded ruling unleashed!

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.

[ellery]

Perhaps that's for the best. Equal protection (OK for heterosexuals = OK for homosexuals) would open the door to gay marriage, yes?

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."

[lepton]

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.

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.

[Taxbilly]

"Sex is morally neutral. That is man and man or man and women or women and women. There is no hierarchy. A man and women are not commit sin by enjoying each others company, nor are two men morally superior by enjoying each others company. "

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.

[Dog Gone]

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

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.

[ellery]

You'd think this site more then most would be sympathtic to adults being allowed to live as they wish in their own home. I'm content to let God to decide what is and isn't a sin and deal with the sinners.

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.