So the US constitution gives the right for sodomy? I don't really agree with the law, but I'm not sure the Supreme Court was right to invalidate it either.
lol I was about to post this exact same quote from Scalia. I found it to be somewhat disturbing coming from a man in his position. For the record, I like Scalia too. These comments just seem to be way off base. "Culture war"???
more... http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 10:46 AM EDT (1446 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy. The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees. "It's an historic day for gay Americans," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay-rights group representing the two Texas men. "I think Americans will be celebratory about this decision." The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to cover similar laws in 12 other states and reverses a 1986 high court ruling upholding sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that homosexuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote, according to a report from The Associated Press. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three, according to the AP. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." False report led to case The justices reviewed the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse. John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in a Houston-area apartment in 1998 by officers responding to a neighbor's false report of an armed intruder. That neighbor wrongly claimed a man was "going crazy" inside the residence. Police crashed into Lawrence's home and discovered Lawrence and Garner involved in a sexual act. They were arrested, jailed overnight and later fined $200. "It was sort of like the Gestapo coming in," said Lawrence after a court appearance. The men's lawyers had said that if the convictions were upheld, their clients would be prevented from obtaining from certain jobs and they would also be considered sex offenders in several states. The Texas law, they told the court, gives gay Americans second-class status as citizens. "I feel like my civil rights were being violated," said Garner, "and I don't think I was doing anything wrong." Lawrence and Garner were charged under Texas' "homosexual conduct" law, which criminalizes "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Although only 13 states now criminalize consensual sodomy, a Texas state appeals court found the law "advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public morals." Landscape has changed since 1986 ruling The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue of was in 1986, when the court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law. Since then, much has changed in U.S. culture, say gay rights supporters, including changes in public attitudes and the fact that such laws are rarely enforced. "The state should not have the power to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arrest them," said Harlow of Lambda. "These laws are widely used to justify discrimination against gay people in everyday life; they're invoked in denying employment to gay people, in refusing custody or visitation for gay parents, and even in intimidating gay people out of exercising their First Amendment rights." Lambda cited recent U.S. Census figures showing about 600,000 households with same-sex partners, 43,000 or so in Texas. Texas prosecutors argued the government has the right to enforce public morality. Supporters of the Texas law say states have long regulated behavior deemed "immoral," including gambling and prostitution. "The government has a legitimate interest in helping preserve not only public health, but public morals as well," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, which filed a legal brief backing Texas. "The mere fact that this behavior occurs in private doesn't mean the public doesn't have a stake in these behaviors." Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well. The case has entered the national political debate, stirred by recent comments from Sen. Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Republican told The Associated Press in May, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything." Santorum defended his remarks but some fellow Republicans distanced themselves from them. The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102).
It is hard for me to imagine this as well. When it comes down to it, this is the same exact issue as the drug war. How is is possible for the government to ban something that happens between consenting adults (as most drug sales and use are). If you respond to that last, there is a thread already - Children addicted to drugs.
The US constitution gives citizens the right to be free from unreasonable government interference. Personally, I think that something that occurs behind closed door between two consenting adults is private behavior that the government has no right to interfere with.
Gee, now that homosexuality no longer has that criminal stigma, I don't know if I'm interested in men anymore.
Max: I'm curious what your thought is about Texas' argument in the case. According to the Chronicle: Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices." The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom." Am I the only one who thinks this is a bizarre defense. They are essentially saying that if you are having sex outside of marriage or even just for enjoyment with no intention of procreation, you are misusing your sexuality in some way. IMO, that is an argument out of the 1950's. I mean, would they prefer to ban ALL sex outside of wedlock? As an attorney, did this sound like a good argument to you?
This argument is WHY the court ruled as it did. Using that logic, the only sex that is valid is sex for the express purpose of impregnating a woman for the purpose of having a child. This attorney was suffering from a severe case of reality withdrawal.
Glad they did the right thing. Now we need to get rid of those silly Hate crime laws....just prosecute the crimes that are on the books. DD
Its stuff like this that truly pisses me off. Unless you are making a bad joke, you should not play the nazi card. I lose all respect for people that use this all the time. "Tyson chicken is kinda like the Third Reich in that they commit mass murders" "Bush wants to go to war with everyone.... kinda reminds me of HItler" Couldn't he come up with something more respectable than playing the all too often used nazi card?
I think you may be over-reading that. Gestapo has become part of the cultural lexicon. Even "Nazi" has a different meaning today. Soup Nazi is a prime example. Puritain was once just for defining a religious denomination of the Christian Church. Now, it can refer to a mode of thinking. We have often turned proper names or names that once had very specific connotation into general-purpose ideas. Kleenex, Xerox, crusades, hell, even "gay" was once just a generic term for happy. Besides, bursting into someone's house and arresting them would be considered a "gestapo" technique so the comparison is largely accurate. Just because they claim it was "like the Gestapo" doesn't mean they are specifically referring to the German secret police.
i agree, jeff..it's an awful argument. you know what argument should have been front and center?? the same one that georgia successfully argued in bowers v. hardwick. the people of our state voted in this legislature to reflect their wishes...the people have spoken...they find homosexuality to be wrong...laws are a product of the values of a culture...and thus, the law should stand...states rights, etc. that argument carried the day in Bowers v. Hardwick...it seems to me the only argument that is even close to reasonable. they may very well have made the argument...the reports just don't indicate they did...but journalists do A TERRIBLE job trying to recount attorneys' arguments and judicial opinions. ultimately, i'm just glad it was overturned. it was long overdue. i really wish our legislature would have just scrapped it so we don't have to parade it before the supreme court...
Agreed completely, especially your last sentence. The legislature so often screws these things up and it becomes the job of the courts, which is a shame.
Isn't the entire system based on Judao Christian & Classic Greek Thought? Our ideas of morality, justice, and even ourselves go back to these philosophies. Now it is our culture and it defines the way see everything. A true separation would be impossible. That is why democracy has a hard time in other cultures of different ancestry. They have fundamental differences in the perception of reality.
DEAD ON RIGHT!!! GREAT POST!!!! ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY! you can not separate the laws of a country from the culture therein...from what it values...from its social mores...
I could only find quotes from Scalia, but they are amusing. Links to the whole text anyone? "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." Unless they want to fulfill their sexuality with another person... Sounds like yet another bizarre rationale for expressing a hatred without saying it ala Santorum and the Catholic church. Personally, I don't want to know what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.
We definitely have laws based on Judeo Christian and classic Greek philosophy. Of course, Greeks of that time weren't Christians because Jesus hadn't been born yet. But, our society is reflected in a myriad of different cultural idioms. We are a decendant of all of those varied philosophies and they cover nearly every religion and ideology relevant to greater Europe prior to our beginnings as a country. That also includes Pagan theology, Greek and Roman mythology, Greek philosophy, scientific discovery and a wide range of social ideology. As our society has evolved, so to have our laws and cultural beliefs. It is impossible to not only separate us from our roots as a country but also from social change. Just as we are the result of our ancestor's history, so will our children be the result of ours.
Greer sees me eyeing my sleeve. "Do you want a Kleenex brand facial tissue?" she asks. "Huh? A what?" She reaches into her desk drawer and retrieves a small packet of tissues. "A Kleenex brand facial tissue. Do you need one?" "Greer? What's wrong with you? Why are you calling them that? They're Kleenexes." She sets the tissues on the desk. "Augusten, you of all people should know better. Kleenex is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark. They're not 'Kleenexes,' they're tissues. Kleenex brand tissues. You can't just go around changing things into what you want them to be. Just because you want to call tissues Kleenexes doesn't make it fair or right." "Um. You're taking this whole Kleenex thing way too seriously. What's this really about?" "Be civilized, okay? Don't use the sleeve of your sweatshirt to wipe your ******* nose." She stands to walk out of the room. "It's not a sweatshirt, Greer. It's a Gap High Performance Fleece Athletic Crew Top." "Dry" Augusten Burroughs
Jeff -- I don't disagree...but laws inherently "force our morals" on others. that's really what i'm getting at. people say we should try to strip morality out of the law...i don't think that can be done...i don't think that should be done.
