Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

[jiml1126]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Legal analysts said it enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

[Myblock]

This is good news to hear. I'm glad states are starting to remove stupid laws like these. I'm also glad Texas and other more "traditional" states are trying to leave behind theire more homophobic and racist sides, good for them.

[JeffinDEN]

Texas, a traditional state? That's a good one.

I think the ruling is a mistake, the court may say it is ok to be a butt ~ucker, but I know a lot of "Good Ole Boys" who will voice their opinion on that!

That's not natural.........

[Katamarino]

Good for the court! Time some of the American states stepped up out of the dark ages

[B757300]

This is good news to hear. I'm glad states are starting to remove stupid laws like these. I'm also glad Texas and other more "traditional" states are trying to leave behind theire more homophobic and racist sides, good for them.

Texas had no intention of changing the law and the majority of our population supported it. However, the Supreme Court decided that the 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything and stick their nose into state's business.

[B757300]

Well let’s see, there is a lot more in this case than whether or not people are allowed to engage in perverted actions behind closed doors.

Despite what Kennedy says in the majority opinion that this case doesn’t involve sex with minors, animals, public conduct, prostitution, polygamy or homosexual marriages this will be the case used by other perverts to try and force legal acceptance of other deviant activity. The next big case is going to be NAMBLA trying to get the Court to remove all age of consent laws so they’ll be free to rape children of any age. Pedophiles will try to claim they’re also a “minority group” that is being oppressed and should be allowed to do whatever they want. Guard your kids because its going to come to the point deviants going to claim they’re allowed to rape any child they please. But why stop there, why not make it legal for an adult brother to have sex with his adult sister? Why not make it legal to have sex with your horse?

I would like someone to show me where in the Constitution the so called “right to privacy” is written. It isn’t in the 5th Amendment or the 14th Amendment. The so called “right to privacy” was a creation of the left and thanks to the liberal Warren Court and fairly liberal Burger Court it has become a precedent.

For Reference:

5th Amendment- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment- “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (The rest of the Amendment deals with Civil War issues.)

If the Supreme Court had to even be involved, they should have simply ruled the case as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it does not apply to the entire population. That would have been the correct legal ruling. It should have left the power to the states to decide if they want to ban all forms of sodomy or allow the law to lapse. Instead the Court used a non-existent part of the Constitution to strike down the law and do what my next paragraph is about.

Vastly more important than the obvious issue is the fact that the Court has once again done their best to gut the 10th Amendment- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” By even getting involved in the business of the states and the people of Texas, the Court has again move the pendulum toward an all powerful federal government and states that are nothing but subjects. The United States was founded on a balance of national and state power where the states had certain powers that the federal government could not encroach upon.

From Justice Scalia’s Dissent:

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best..." "I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,' ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

In other words he would rather have the law changed by the states and not by a small group of old people sitting on the Supreme Court.


Justice Thomas, dissenting.

“I join JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is . . . uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ‘liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,’ ante, at 1.”

Justice O’Connor’s Concurring:

“Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as the Court does, I base my conclusion on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”

In case some people are too blinded to see, the Justices who dissented did so because of the why the case was decided. They all felt it was a violation of states rights and the issue should have been left up to the people of the states to decide. At the very most, they wanted the Court to simply say the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and not the non-existent “right to privacy”. Even Justice O’Connor said it should have been Equal Protection. The Court should have let the notion of “substantive due process” die following the ruling in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish which still stands to this day.
__________________

Now for my personal opinion.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court has said, their ruling only applies to the law. People’s personal opinions are not required to agree with their ruling. Despite what some will say, the majority of Americans do not support special rights for homosexuals. Homosexuals do not comprise a large part of the population. Even the plaintiffs in Lawrence v. Texas admitted in their written brief that homosexuals comprise at the most around 2% of the population.

Homosexuals can scream all they want that what they do is “normal” but except for those on the left who support special rights for every so called “minority”, many Americans do not consider it normal. The primary purpose for sex is to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexual “sex” does not do this and therefore is not normal. I just wonder how much of an increase in AIDS, other STD’s and other social problems will be the result of this ruling?

Finally, the day will never come where the Supreme Court of the United States, any other government or Court, or any election will be able to overturn the laws of God. God has said that homosexuality is a perversion and will result in those who engage in it going to hell upon their death. Everyone are free to believe that or disbelieve it. The only way any of us will know the absolute truth is upon each of our deaths. If I’m wrong and there is no God or he doesn’t care I’ve lost nothing. If I'm right that God will pass final Judgment on all mankind, then those who have chosen to reject his Word will have lost everything.

I think I’ll add a little disclaimer since I'm not sure how people on this forum act about controversial issues. We all know how it gets on Airliners.net when certain members don't like what others post.

I don’t care if anyone agrees with me and I wouldn't be surprised to see childish flames and insults from immature members who don’t want to have a real debate on the issues. That’s fine. You can flame me all you want. If I wasn't able to take it I wouldn't post on any forum.

[JeffinDEN]

Well said!

Kat, you think two guys having sex is stepping OUT of the dark ages? The human race would become extinct if that disgusting practice became the norm.

[Katamarino]

Wow, i didnt realise how prudish things still were over there I hear people preaching on here all the time about how if you dont like something on the forums, dont read or take part in it. Doesnt the same thing apply to this case? If you dont want to be homosexual then dont - and we've already heard from B757300 that less than 2% of the population DO want to. I dont see this constituting a huge threat to the continuation of the glorious American people.

You say this practice is disgusting and wrong. You also claim that this practice causes those involved to die out, as no reproduction is possible (a point taken from Jeff there). Ultimately, this means that if the practice IS legal those practicing it will not reproduce and they are removed from the gene pool. Ultimately, why should this be a problem for you? Is it not better, in your eyes, than them being forced into straight relationships where they could have a much more direct influence on the upbringing of a child and, as i'm sure you would be worried, 'turn' them.

While sex IS primarily for the continuation of the species, that is not all it is good for. In all relationships, homosexual AND hetrosexual, sex is the ultimate sharing of oneself with ones partner, and that right should not be taken away from anyone capable of making the decision (ie Specifically excluding minors) no matter what their preference.

B757300s arguement that this judgement will lead to the legalisation of child sex - complete sensationalist Bull**** (sorry, but thats all it can be labelled). There are plenty of countries, and other US states, where gay intercourse is permitted. How many of them, tell me, permit child sex? In how many of them are child sex a huge problem as a direct result of the original ruling? None. The public, in places other than Texas it seems, has the sense to be able to differentiate between the acceptability of 2 consenting adults having intercourse in private, and the abuse of children. Maybe in Texas they are incapable of this?

Also B757300, you claim that this is a 'special right' for homosexuals. How do you regard the right of a gay couple to engage in intercourse as being ANY different from the right of a straight couple to engage in intercourse? Doesnt seem all that special to me.

The increase in AIDS and STDs you mention - there is no reason why a sensible homosexual couple should be any more at risk from these diseases than a similar straight couple. It could be argued that gay couples are less likely to take precautions (maybe due to the limited risk of pregnancy!) and you might be right, but this is a problem with individuals, and no different to a straight couple not taking adequate precautions. It has nothing to do with this ruling. Indeed, it might be thought that now the practise is legal, gay couples are more likely to start taking precautions and settling down where they had previously been forced into liaisons in less than ideal circumstances (meeting randoms in bushes and the like, yech).

About God - people are free to believe or disbelieve what they want. You are perfectly entitled to your belief in God, and others are entitled to their belief in whatever religion they choose. I am sure you would never presume to start telling us that they are wrong, and should not be worshipping their own Gods.

So, the rulings of your religion hold absolutely no sway with people of other faiths, and in the view of all people being treated equally, are irrelevant to the law of the land. We could just as easily say that eating pork should be banned, as muslims believe that carries a heavy spiritual penalty. Now i know that as a religion Christians are in the majority in the US but that still doesnt mean the teachings of the Christian faith should be given any more DIRECT sway over the lives of other faiths. (The question of the dumbing down of Christianity just for the sake of political correctness (reverse discrimination) is a big problem over here, but not what i am talking about.)

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.

I hope you dont construe this as a flame.

Kat

[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.

[B757300]

Katamarino, since you're not from the United States and unless you done a study of U.S. Constitutional development, you might not understand the real problem many with the ruling. The setup of our Republic is for a balance of national and state power which is protected by the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. This ruling basically says the 10th Amendment doesn't mean anything. My problem with the ruling (apart from my personal beliefs) is that it had nothing to do with the rule of law. This was a ruling based not on the rule of law but on the Justices' "feelings". If they had been using the law they would not have taken the case since it should have been left up to the states. If they had to make a ruling, it should have been based on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Instead they used “substantive due process” and “right to privacy” which are not found anywhere in the Constitution.

If you think this isn’t going to open the door to more perversions, you’re wrong. Just listening to the different news shows last night and reading the papers this morning, the law suits are already being planned and filed to legalize several of the things I listed. The only thing that will stop this is a Constitutional Amendment to over turn the Supreme Court which has only happened four times in the last 214 years.

As for my personal beliefs on homosexuality, I do agree that we’re creatures of free choice and we allowed to do as we please. However, we much suffer the consequences of those actions, either here and/or in the next life. God will judge all of us for our actions on this earth.

[JeffinDEN]

I'll stick with the attraction to women, the thought of being attracted to some guy's hairy ass continues to make me sick. (thank God)

[Airigami]

However, we much suffer the consequences of those actions, either here and/or in the next life. God will judge all of us for our actions on this earth.

Then you shouldn't have anything to worry about, then, should you?

I always laugh when people voice their opposition to [insert practice/type of person here] by saying it's 'wrong' and 'sinful' and so on, and then say that God will judge us all. If you believe that, then if you don't do the practice in question you shouldn't have any concerns - those that do will be the ones burning in hell while you're up having a good ol' time with St. Peter, breezing through Heaven's pearly gates as if you had a diplomatic passport breezing through customs and immigration.

Personally, I am against homosexual sex. But when I say 'against it' I mean I would not like to do it myself. (Actually, I find it repulsive, but that is beside the point). I do not believe, however, that I have any right to stop anyone else from partaking in the practice if that is their wish. And as long as it doesn't harm me or anyone else who does not want to be involved, what do I care? It is none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is consensual and does not involve minors and ultimately does not harm anybody else.

... Constitutional analysis to come if I have enough time today ...

[JeffinDEN]

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?

[Chris Kilroy]

Like me seeing guys walking down the street in heels, pink thongs, and feather boas is gonna help change my mind?

(yeah, I know posts with only emoticons aren't allowed, but that's really the only thing I have to contribute to this one. )

[Airigami]

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?

What? They're really guys? Noooooo!