Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

[Airigami]

A few things we've all forgotten...

So, while the doomsayers out there talk of fire and brimstone and the slippery slope, here's some food for thought...


* Lawrence and Garner, the two men who were caught by Houston cops, shall we say, showing their affection for each other, were fined $200 each. Texas law has such a dim view of sodomy that it fines the offenders only $40 more than a parking violation I have with Arlington County. If it were such a threat to civilisation, I think Texas law would provide for slightrly stronger punishments...

* Bans on homosexual conduct have already been repealed in most states -

Legislative Repeal --
Sodomy laws that have been repealed through legislative action:
Alaska (1980)
Arizona (2001)
California (1976)
Colorado (1972)
Connecticut (1971)
Delaware (1973)
District of Columbia (1993)
Hawaii (1973)
Illinois (1962)
Indiana (1977)
Iowa (197
Maine (1976)
Nebraska (197
Nevada (1993)
New Hampshire (1975)
New Jersey (1979)
New Mexico (1975)
North Dakota (1973)
Ohio (1974)
Oregon (1972)
Rhode Island (199
South Dakota (1977)
Vermont (1977)
Washington (1976)
West Virginia (1976)
Wisconsin (1983)
Wyoming (1977)

Invalidated by Courts --
States whose sodomy laws were struck down by courts:
Arkansas (2001)
Georgia (199
Kentucky (1992)
Maryland (1999)
Minnesota (2001)
Montana (1997)
New York (1980)
Pennsylvania (1980)
Tennessee (1996)

Existing Same-Sex Laws and Their Penalties --
States with sodomy laws that target only same-sex acts:
Kansas (6 months/$1,000)
Missouri (1 year/$1,000)
Oklahoma (10 years)
Texas ($500)

Existing Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Laws and Their Penalties --
States with laws prohibiting sodomy between both same-sex and opposite-sex partners:
Alabama (1 year/$2,000)
Florida (60 days/$500)
Idaho (5 years to life)
Louisiana (5 years/$2,000)
Mississippi (10 years)
North Carolina (10 years/discretionary fine)
Puerto Rico (10 years)
South Carolina (5 years/$500)
Utah (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia (1-5 years)

Existing Laws -- Status Unclear and Their Penalties:
Massachusetts (20 years)
Michigan (15 years)
Missouri (same-sex only) (1 year/$1,000)

* Interestingly, the last time sodomy laws came before the USSC, in 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Georgia law criminalizing the practice was upheld. Since then, the Georgia legislature independently repealed the law regardless. Interestingly also, Bowers was decided 5-4. The swinging judge, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the last to cast his vote (when the other justices were split 4-4), later admitted that after re-reading the minority's judgement, he agreed more with that and regretted voting with the majority.

* For a notoriously conservative Supreme Court, which found in favour of Bush in 5-4 and then 7-2 votes, they still managed to pass this judgement with a 6-3 split. And to quote big 'C' Conservative, Justice Thomas, "Were I a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal [the sodomy law]".

* So just because it's a law doesn't mean it will be enforced. Lawrence and Garner were arrested when police found them, pole-sitting shall we say, after being called to their house for a totally unrelated (and as it transpired, false) reason. It is not as if there are Morality Police out there. This is why, firstly, this is not that big a deal to the practice of sodomy, and secondly, the nature of the sodomy law differs greatly from that, of say, sex with minors or gay marriage. Gay marriage is an action that must be permissible by law - i.e., you need a law allowing it to be able to do it (because you must have legal backing to the marriage contract). Whereas, you do not need a law allowing you to stick your bits where they don't belong - it is an action that one may do, but they run the risk of being fined if they are caught by a zealous cop.

Just some interesting thoughts from a legal perspective.

[Katamarino]

I always get a kick out of the "Pride" parades.

What is the point of those silly displays anyway? Like me seeing guys walking down the street in heels, pink thongs, and feather boas is gonna help change my mind?

Agreed - they're completely pointless! Really could do without guys in pink thongs

[Katamarino]

I am Christian myself, and i believe God gave us free will. What we choose to do with it is up to us - while many things are unacceptable in the eyes of God (killing for example) it still goes on, and sanctioned by our Governments as well. The law of God and the laws of the land are very different things.

The Bible clearly says homosexuality is "unnatural" and "indecent." Just look at Romans 1:26-32. Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

[B757300]

If you read my first post I quote the Dissenting opinion by Thomas. It seems like just about everyone, to the point of overkill on Airliners.net, thinks this case is nothing but a pro/anti-homosexual debate. No one seems to realize the Constitutional issues in the case.

While Thomas may think the law was stupid, he also felt it should be dealt with by the people of the state and not the federal government.

Scalia and Rehnquist, while not calling the law stupid, both felt it also was a matter for the states. Scalia also felt this was a "cultural" matter, not a legal matter and therefore the Supreme Court should stay out.

[Chris Kilroy]

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

Tell that to Saddam.

Our actions in Iraq saved a lot more lives than they took...

[DeltaFlyer]

As a Texan and a homosexual I am glad to see that this law has been repealed - I am sorry that it took the US Sepreme Court to do it though!

I do want to comment about a few of the statements made earlier -

1st of all homosexuals are not asking for "special rights", we are only asking for "equal rights". Had the police busted through the door and found a man and woman having anal sex nothing would have been done, even though the Texas Sodomy Law applied to both homosexual and heterosexual sex.

2nd - the repeal of this law has, in no way, any bearing on the way that anyone, gays or straights, feel about NAMBLA or any other child molestation group. This law refers strictly to sexual acts between consenting adults, not between adults and chldren. NAMBLA is not a sanctioned gay group as most straights like to believe and they are not welcome to participate in gay activities.

3rd - homosexuals are not child molesters just because we are gay...in fact over 90% of child molestation cases are little girls molested by men that are either family members or friends of the family. We wont even go into the recent batch of child molestation cases against the catholic church, I do not believe all catholics are pedophiles, but based on the recent news media coverage of the stories they sure portray it that way...news media sensationalize the facts!

4th - Gay Pride Parades - have you ever actually been to one or just seen the clips on the local news??? I have been to several including the March on Washington in 1993...the majority of participants are in jeans, t-shirts (yes they may have gay slogans on them) and other "normal" clothing items - there are also the few drag queens, leather guys or dykes on bikes...unfortunately those are the ones that get plastered all over the news...The news media looks to sensationalize the gay pride parades just as they do every other news story that is being covered...The last parade that I went to I didnt even recognize on the TV, they showed the same float over and over from different angles - and it happened to have a drag queen sitting on it...The marchers from the Log Cabin Republicans didnt even get mentioned and they were in business casual attire.

5th...the bible, there have been some very good discussions (pro and con)on homosexuality and the bible any yahoo search will pull those up if you are so inclined to read them - but what amazes me is the way that christians - I am southern baptist by the way- will pick and choose sins from the bible...I think the commandment about adultery has been broken so many times it may never heal again...there is also Lev 25:44 - you can own slaves as long as you purchase them from a surrounding nation - since I am in Texas it will probably be cheaper for me to get a Mexican then a Canadian (just kidding). When you have the time, take a read through Exodus and Leviticus and see what all is considered sins.

For those of you wondering, I am 30 yrs old and I have only been with 3 different men, one of those men I was in a relationship with for over 8yrs and we were completely true to each other the whole time. It is very possible for gay men to have long-term monogamous relationships, infact all the guys and gals that I know are in or looking for a long-term monogamous relationship. We are not out to put notches on our headboards or lipstick cases, we are trying to find someone that we can grow old with and be happy with! As with any section of society there are exceptions to the rules.

Now - for the ones who want to flame me, I will debate facts but I do not debate opinions, you are free to have different opinions and I respect that, diversity is what makes the world as unique as it is.

Wayne
HOU

[B757300]

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

Tell that to Saddam.

Our actions in Iraq saved a lot more lives than they took...

There is a difference in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Murder". God said for certain crimes the penalty was death with premeditated murder being the most heinous.

I'll respond to other posts later but I've got to get to work. Gotta pay those bills, lol.

[herpa2003]

I am Christian myself, and i believe God gave us free will. What we choose to do with it is up to us - while many things are unacceptable in the eyes of God (killing for example) it still goes on, and sanctioned by our Governments as well. The law of God and the laws of the land are very different things.

The Bible clearly says homosexuality is "unnatural" and "indecent." Just look at Romans 1:26-32. Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

Many times in the Bible God tells someone to kill someone else. Not murder, but in battles. Like B757300 said, there is a difference between killing and murdering.

[Airigami]

Katamarino wrote:

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

Tell that to Saddam.

Funny - I didn't know Saddam subscribed to the Bible.



Don't worry, Chris, I know what you mean ... I just couldn't resist...

[Airigami]

Thank you for your post, DeltaFlyer. I for one appreciate your point of view.

Well said.

[Katamarino]

The bible clearly states 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Tell that to Dubya.

Tell that to Saddam.

Our actions in Iraq saved a lot more lives than they took...

Thats as may be but you completely miss my point. Just because its in the bible doesnt mean that everyone strives to follow it. Why get all het up about homosexuality, which is essentially harmless, when there are so many more serious crimes at odds with the bibles teaching going on every day that you ignore completely...?

[Katamarino]

Many times in the Bible God tells someone to kill someone else. Not murder, but in battles. Like B757300 said, there is a difference between killing and murdering.

Is the bombing of innocent civilians (intentional or not) not murder? Is the 'removal' of certain annoying figures (and dont tell me it never happens) not murder? Is the provision of funds to terrorists such as the IRA not indirectly murder? I know this is all in the minority, but you still cant possibly claim that every death caused by the US (OR any other country) is an honorable one in battle. Remember, everything is from our own point of view. To many in the world, the coalition are the criminals. It is weak to fall back on your own interpretation of the bible to account for everything one does.

The bible is hardly reliable anyway. The translation is suspect in many places - the Hebrew word for Virgin is the same as Young Girl (i am told by a theologion at university who studies the bible), and THAT could cause a good deal of change if it was translated wrong.

[herpa2003]

Many times in the Bible God tells someone to kill someone else. Not murder, but in battles. Like B757300 said, there is a difference between killing and murdering.

Is the bombing of innocent civilians (intentional or not) not murder? Is the 'removal' of certain annoying figures (and dont tell me it never happens) not murder? Is the provision of funds to terrorists such as the IRA not indirectly murder? I know this is all in the minority, but you still cant possibly claim that every death caused by the US (OR any other country) is an honorable one in battle. Remember, everything is from our own point of view. To many in the world, the coalition are the criminals. It is weak to fall back on your own interpretation of the bible to account for everything one does.

The bible is hardly reliable anyway. The translation is suspect in many places - the Hebrew word for Virgin is the same as Young Girl (i am told by a theologion at university who studies the bible), and THAT could cause a good deal of change if it was translated wrong.

First of all, the Bible is very reliable. I could get into that, but I wont at the moment. If you want to know why it is reliable, just ask.
And, about the bombing of civilians is not murder when it is unintentional. Accidents happen, and when you have tons of missles and bombs flying around, some civilians are bound to be hit. Its the sad truth. However, intentional killing of civilians, like 9/11 and Israel v Palestine, is not acceptable in any form.

[Katamarino]

Lets get into the reliability of the bible. It has been passed down from generation to generation, been translated to and from countless languages, and wasnt even pieced together from many different sources until many years after the death of Christ. And kind of historian or researcher can instantly see the multitude of possibilities for artistic license, loss, and general mis-understanding.

The bombing of civilians goes on even when it is known there is a high risk. Is that not murder - to still launch when you know the chances are that innocents will die?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murder - n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

This says that the decision of whether or not murder has been committed is in deciding whether or not the killing was lawful. Does any country have the right to decide what is or isnt lawful in another country, when the complaint here in the first place is whether it is acceptable for a government to intervene withs laws at state level. It seems many people here are for the first and against the second, and this simply does not gel.

So taken that the decision of murder depends on whos laws your talking about, some of the killings in actions such as Iraq are always going to be murder. The debate then moves on to whether or not murder should be acceptable if the end is justifiablely important. The opinion of many countries seems to be that it is. Therefore, they are acting against the express word of the bible for what i am sure you will agree is the greater good.

This shows that blindly following the bible leads us nowhere, and interpretation and circumstances are everything. As such, mere bible quotes are no use as a basis for an attack on homosexuality in this day and age.

[herpa2003]

Ok, I didn't want to get into the bombing of civilians, because that would lead to Iraq and the cause for the war etc... but now I guess I have to.

We went into Iraq to prevent our own civilians from being murdered. Now I wish that we could have only killed those who were fighting against us, but war doesn't work this way. People die, many times the people killed are innocent. Thats not murder unless its intentional, its war, and its a sad reality.