Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: Ol' Sparky
"What's next? The legalization of prostitution? "

It's already legal in several counties in Nevada. So?
351 posted on 06/26/2003 8:47:42 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
The Bill of Rights doesn't include a 'right to privacy', dead.

That is a very nice statement that has absolutely nothing in the least to do with my point (or your original statement.)

The Bill of Rights overrules “democracy” in favor of individual rights. Libertarians support this concept, which you seem to have a problem with.

352 posted on 06/26/2003 8:47:56 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
No, you're correct. But there are some who believe it is their right- gay or straight. My problem is that too many people think they have the right to do anything they want.
353 posted on 06/26/2003 8:48:03 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
Is it legal for any adult to have sex with any other consenting adult? What about orgies?

Legal, I don't know.

As the government is sanctioning marriage, I think laws criminalizing adultery are much more logical than laws criminalizing sodomy.

354 posted on 06/26/2003 8:48:07 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Carlucci
"The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS came to these conclusions:

" 'Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con- stitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to pro- duce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).'

"JUSTICE STEVENS’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece- dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex- ual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their exis- tence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847.

"The Texas statute furthers no le- gitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its mani- fold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered."

355 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:05 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

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

I think that's what many are reacting to, while others consider it reactionary.

We all have seen over the years what happens when the camel gets his nose in the tent. We've seen it with our schools.

In my opinion, the way is being cleared for same-sex marriages.

356 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:15 AM PDT by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It seems to be a faction of them that believe this.

That seems more like it. Note that you originally posted that MOST gays believed that public sex is some sort of right.
357 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:35 AM PDT by Belial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Catie
Can anyone give me one good reason not to be distressed over the "times have changed" underpinning of the Court's decision? Slippery slope, my eye, we're almost at the bottom of the sliding board. States' rights, fugghedaboudit. Except, of course, for the "compelling interest" of "diversity." Aaargh.

The legal reasoning, and I use that term liberally, is bizarre.

358 posted on 06/26/2003 8:49:45 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Ohio Chapter. Original White Devil for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Libertarians aren't friends of democracy.

Democracy is mob rule. The U.S. is not a democracy.

If we were a democracy, this ruling may have ostensibly been the wrong decision if the majority of people were in favor of singling out gay people for prosecution under sodomy laws.

But since we're not a democracy, this ruling correctly protects the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority (read: mob).

359 posted on 06/26/2003 8:50:28 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It's a real estate thing: location, location, location.
360 posted on 06/26/2003 8:50:43 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

Comment #361 Removed by Moderator

To: Amelia
Unmarried sex for free has also been illegal. Problem is, how are you going to enforce it?

That's the point that's been lost in all of this. The cops cannot enforce this ban. So why am I bitching about it?

It is the job of society to uphold the public morality. It is the job of society to define what is right and wrong and then enforce it informally by shunning, social pressure, standards and so on. When everyone in a society agrees on what is right and what is wrong, then they pass laws to affirm what they already believe to be true. Most of the time, these laws are enforced by social disapproval of the behavior. If people's standards have changed, then they will repeal these laws via their elected officials.

What dimwittitarians don't realize is that every time something like this happens it's not 'liberty'. It's the increasing encroachment of the Feds arrogating more power to themselves. The entire purpose of the enumerated and delegated power structure of the federal Constitution was to let states and localities define for themselves the way they wish to live. Congrats libertarians. You got what you wanted, no voting required.

BTW, libertarians, the Bill of Rights was voted on, wasn't it? Oh, that's right. It was handed down in stone tablets from Mount Ayn Randi.

362 posted on 06/26/2003 8:51:04 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

Comment #363 Removed by Moderator

To: BlackjackHF
I guess it's separation of morality and state now, because only churches care about morality anymore (some of them still do).
364 posted on 06/26/2003 8:51:45 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Belial
out
365 posted on 06/26/2003 8:52:22 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Belial
I corrected myself later in the thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
366 posted on 06/26/2003 8:52:24 AM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Belial
It is interesting SCOTUS did not use the right to privacy rationale. That is the big suprise of this opinion. The result of striking down the criminalization of sodomy was widely anticipated as almost certain.
367 posted on 06/26/2003 8:52:27 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Yikes !!


MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)


368 posted on 06/26/2003 8:52:36 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"Age-related laws have not been overturned nor will they be, indeed the Constitution not only allows age restrictions it contains them. This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do."

Does this clear the way for incest, polygamy, drug use, etc.? If the ruling is specific enough it may not be a problem, but behavior must be regulated to some extent. There are too many wackos out there to give carte blanc
acceptance of 'what grownups do'
369 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:09 AM PDT by bk1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BlackjackHF
What you're saying is that any illegal act is A-OK as long as it happens on your property.

More correctly, any act between consenting adults, which does not result in the intiation of force or fraud against others, is A-OK, as long as it happens on your property.

370 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:26 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: dead
"The Bill of Rights overrules “democracy” in favor of individual rights. "

When did the Bill of Rights change to give this protection to homosexuals and deny the state the power to make this law?

It did not when it was passed. What in the Constitution has changed?

I can understand someone agreeing with the result of the decision, but I cannot understand anyone accepting the process.

371 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:28 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Libertarians are cheering the usurpation of the legislative powers reserved to the states by an all-powerful federal governmental body.

Do you have any articles or other citations to back this up, or are you just spewing as usual?

372 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:39 AM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BlackjackHF
Maybe the fact that we live in a democracy? Maybe if they tried to do that those politicians wouldn’t be going back to the capital building? But no, you libertarians are right, they only thing stopping us from being Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan is an unelected oligarchy. Idiots.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but isn't it a democracy that got us into this discussion in the FIRST place? I believe the judicial branch of the government was something the Founders had envisioned.

BTW, since when does pointing out a philosophical fallacy (the slippery slope argument) make one become a libertarian? I'm sure you are a righteous fellow, no need to act it out by throwing around juvenile names.

373 posted on 06/26/2003 8:53:51 AM PDT by MaxPlus305
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Two opinions:

1. None. They already see the light.

2. None. It doesn't matter because they're always in the dark.

Either way, the answer is none. ;^)~

374 posted on 06/26/2003 8:54:22 AM PDT by Cooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Torie
striking down the criminalization of sodomy was widely anticipated as almost certain.

As well it should have been.

375 posted on 06/26/2003 8:54:32 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"How does one "consume" a marriage, anyway?"

I think that falls under the category of _oral_ sex. That's illegal in several states, of course.
376 posted on 06/26/2003 8:54:39 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I don't understand why so many Freepers are opposed to government expansion and intrusion except when their own special interest is involved.
377 posted on 06/26/2003 8:54:56 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toothless
Not all freepers are conservatives, many are religious fundamantalists.

I prefer to call them "Christian Socialists".

378 posted on 06/26/2003 8:56:27 AM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
One word:
Ugh

While I don't actually think this kind of stuff is the government's business this penumbra concept thing is very irritating. To use a metaphor that will speak to Tucsonans: it's like putting out a fire by blowing up the mountain.
379 posted on 06/26/2003 8:56:30 AM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Someone PLEASE send THIS to SCOTUS!:
380 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:15 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
And they will get sicker and more numerous as the desensitization process continues...

YO Queiro Taco Bell!
381 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:22 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Another surprise was Scalia babbling about the Court signing onto the "gay agenda". He sounded more like the discredited pyschologists the FRC likes to employ as "resident experts" than a SC justice.
382 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:27 AM PDT by Belial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: jethropalerobber
Sounds like Kennedy, in giving his opinion, had heard all the specious histrionics that gets hashed and rehashed on FR every time a thread on this subject comes up. He also decisively shot down that folly.
383 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:32 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I'm trying to remember why I vote. It used to be because I cared about the laws of my community. But the courts told me I have no say. Then I thought it was to influence who sat on the courts. But the democrats say it makes no difference -- they pick either way. So...exac;tly what's my role in this government "of, by, and for the people"?
384 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:53 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
When did the Bill of Rights change to give this protection to homosexuals and deny the state the power to make this law?

Once again, the Bill of Rights is NOT (and is not intended to be) a comprehensive list of the rights of individuals.

The rights of individuals are as potentially vast and varied as the human imagination, and cannot be listed.

Read the ninth amendment.

385 posted on 06/26/2003 8:58:37 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: BlackjackHF
I didn’t call anyone a child molester…I’m only saying you support the slippery slope, that doesn’t mean you want to engage in those acts.

Oh, I’m sorry. You weren’t saying that people who agree with this ruling are actually child molestors. You were only saying that they support child molestation without actually engaging in it.

Well I won’t say you’re a moron. I will only say that you produce moronic statements and then back them up with additional moronic statements.

And my comments were on point because I was addressing the slippery slope, and what the real meaning of this ruling is.

The real meaning of this ruling is that this particular law against homosexual sodomy by consenting adults in Texas is considered unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court.

It has nothing to do with age of consent. It has nothing to do with child molestation. You have adhered these things to the ruling, but that doesn’t make it so.

Dance around it however you want, Lib, the truth is right in the majority opinion.

Yes the truth is there. I guess you can’t read very well. From Kennedy’s opinion:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

386 posted on 06/26/2003 8:58:50 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I'm with Laz on this one. Libertarians are the root of all Evil. We are the reason Lucifer fell from grace. I, personally, pushed him.

I can hardly credit that on a website called "Free Republic", that people would be having a serious discussion of what laws should govern bedroom conduct between consenting adults.

387 posted on 06/26/2003 8:59:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I don't understand why so many Freepers are opposed to government expansion and intrusion except when their own special interest is involved.

Ding !

388 posted on 06/26/2003 8:59:38 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: unspun
One must draw lines and draw them somewhere.

The USSC has just decided the lines were drawn in the wrong place.

389 posted on 06/26/2003 9:00:05 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
So...exac;tly what's my role in this government "of, by, and for the people"?

Your role is to pay your taxes to continue to fund the welfare system for all of the Dem voters who get your money. </ sarcasam>

390 posted on 06/26/2003 9:00:12 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
From the Dallas Morning News.
It looks like they have the Politically Correct writer on the story!!:


Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

06/26/2003

By ALLEN PUSEY / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws in Texas and 12 other states that criminalize sex between adults of the same gender – a decision that will have widespread effect on issues of personal privacy, as well as gay rights.

Speaking for a 6-3 majority that struck down the Texas law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives" and that government "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

He was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter.

Justice O'Connor, while joining the majority against the Texas law in a concurring opinion, also defended the court's ruling in a past sodomy case, leaving a majority of 5-4 to strike down the other states' laws.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented on both counts. Writing for the minority, Justice Scalia said that the majority had "taken sides in the culture war."

The decision reversed the court's 1986 ruling in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case, in which a 5-4 majority affirmed a Georgia criminal law banning consensual sex between same-sex adults. At the time, Justice Byron White rejected the notion that any private sexual conduct, even within the home, is constitutionally protected.

"This is a historic day," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay-rights advocacy group. "The court has had the courage to reverse the decision it made 17 years ago and the wisdom to decide that case was wrong even then."

Of 13 states that criminalized sodomy, four, including Texas, apply the law only to same-sex intercourse – defined in Texas as anal or oral sex. Texas' law – Section 21.06 of the Texas penal code, also known as the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. – originally included even married heterosexual couples but was changed in 1973.

Although the change was intended to liberalize laws on sexual conduct, gays and lesbians charged that it, in effect, disqualified homosexuals from employment and social opportunities by declaring their private behavior against the law.

The case the Supreme Court heard involved two Houston men, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner, believed to be the only consenting adults ever prosecuted under Texas' law.

In September 1998, police responding to a report of an angry gunman, burst into a Houston apartment and discovered Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner engaging in consensual sex. Instead of ignoring the false alarm, they arrested the two men for violation of Section 21.06.

Although the caller – later identified and prosecuted – admitted that he had intended to harass Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner, the case was not dropped. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner pleaded "no contest" to the charge and were fined $200, but they made clear their intention to challenge the law.

"This is a new day for gay Americans, starting today," said Paul M. Smith, who argued the case for Houston plaintiffs.

In a brief arguing for the Texas law, Harris County prosecutors had argued that the Supreme Court had never recognized a right to sexual conduct "outside the venerable institution of marriage."

But during oral arguments in the Houston case in March, several justices openly questioned both who and what was being protected by the Texas law.

More than 100 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Public Health Association and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, filed briefs in support of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. They were opposed by groups such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association, a Christian lobbying group, along with the states of Alabama, South Carolina and Utah – all of which have sodomy laws.

Gay rights groups had said that a court ruling against the sodomy laws could vastly expand privacy rights and protections for gays. They noted, for example, that without the laws on the books, homosexuals could apply for jobs in fields such as law enforcement and to adopt children without lying when asked if they had broken the law.

In one "friend of the court" brief filed for the American Civil Liberties Union, Harvard constitutional lawyer Laurence H. Tribe argued that the Bowers decision was "an anomaly." In the last 40 years, he said, the court has struck down a number of state laws that tried to regulate sex, and even child-bearing, among married and unmarried couples.

Mr. Tribe argued that sodomy laws have existed for centuries but have seldom resulted in the prosecution of consenting adults. Neither Mr. Tribe nor the Harris county prosecutors were aware of any similar Texas case.

"It was gratifying today to hear the court in ringing affirmation join the community of nations," he said. "The state has no business dictating the most intimate, private relations of consenting American adults."

Mr. Tribe said the ruling extended not only to the criminalization of sexual behavior but also spoke to the discrimination against gays and lesbians made possible by such criminal laws.

"They said it's not the state's business to categorize people in these ways," he said.

E-mail apusey@dallasnews.com


Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/062603dnnatsodomy.61aef.html

391 posted on 06/26/2003 9:01:24 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaxPlus305
Oh man, you must not have been through the peer pressure to go to Lucky Changs in NYC or actually witnessed a gay march.

Yuk and YUk.

you can bet the fisting classes for young johnny who cant get a date is just around the corner....
392 posted on 06/26/2003 9:01:25 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Therefore the common good is greater than the good for any single citizen.

That is the basis of socialism.

393 posted on 06/26/2003 9:01:42 AM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Comment #394 Removed by Moderator

To: jgrubbs
Your role is to pay your taxes to continue to fund the welfare system for all of the Dem voters who get your money.

Oh yeah. How could I forget. I just mailed a huge property tax payment for my house the other day. I've got to get out of Johnson County.

395 posted on 06/26/2003 9:02:35 AM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
I hear ya, man, I hear ya.
396 posted on 06/26/2003 9:03:00 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
So this ruling is only striking down the laws in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri where the application is not equal under the law?
397 posted on 06/26/2003 9:03:11 AM PDT by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. The lightbulb has a right to be left alone.

398 posted on 06/26/2003 9:04:26 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
The whole is greater than its parts. Therefore the common good is greater than the good for any single citizen.

Karl?

Karl Marx?

Izzat you?

399 posted on 06/26/2003 9:05:24 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Comment #400 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 1,701-1,734 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson