Court overturns Texas sodomy law
Justices say it violates Constitution’s equal protection clause

WASHINGTON, June 26 — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Texas statute that bans gay couples — but not heterosexuals — from engaging in sodomy, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

THE 6-3 RULING reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major re-examination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state’s ability to makes crimes of what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.
Thursday’s ruling invalidated a Texas law against “deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.”

The law “demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

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. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare.
SIMILAR LAWS ALSO INVALIDATED

Similar laws outlawing sodomy — defined as oral or anal intercourse — between gay or lesbian couples are on the books in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri and apparently were invalidated by Thursday’s ruling.
Nine other states have banned sodomy for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It was not immediately clear whether the ruling also would strike them. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court. The men “are entitled to respect for their private lives,” Kennedy wrote. “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” he said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia, who wrote the dissenting opinion, took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
DISSENT CITES ‘CULTURE WAR’ “The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” he said. “The court has taken sides in the culture war.”

Scalia added that he has “nothing against homosexuals.”
The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, have retreated from public view. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was “going crazy” in Lawrence’s apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts. The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas’. The ruling became a touchstone for gay activists.

A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.
The court’s most recent previous ruling in this area came in 1986 when, by a 5-to-4 vote, it upheld a Georgia law outlawing sodomy.

In that case, Bowers v. Hardwick, the five-justice majority said “we are quite unwilling” to declare “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.”

The majority said in the Bowers decision that for a right to be deemed fundamental it had to be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” And, they said, legalized sodomy was not part of the history and tradition of the country.

Of the current members of the court, Rehnquist and O’Connor joined the majority in the Bowers decision. Stevens was one of the four dissenters in Bowers.

Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Defenders of the law said that any state has a right to set its own moral standards and that those who wrote the 14th Amendment never intended it to protect gays and lesbians. The 14th Amendment was written in 1867 to ensure that the ex-slaves did not become a permanent servile class, subjugated by state laws.

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.”

Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state’s supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage.

On the radio they were reading portions of Scalia's dissent and one of the first lines in it is that this will allow bestiality. Why is it that whenever gay rights advance the first thing the conservatives drag out is animal sex? Are they repressing something? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seems to me this ruling flys in the face of the 9 and 10th amendments.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Bugger it all!

oh and I agree with Arvon. :D
</font>

[ 06-26-2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

roflmao.. nice pun..

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
While I realize you were being humorous, Id like to address the underlying principle...by allowing that there is an "Absolute right to privacy" any number of things, Including Beastiality, Incest and molestaion can occur under this legal "shield" They point out Beastiality first and foremost probably because like "most" people they find the thought disgusting and think that it will illustrate their point. Scalia is not a stupid man, and you should give him some credit for his common sense....there is at least one person on that bench that just reversed her previous opinions and ovtes...she caved in to social pressure from gay rights activists....You know...they aren't supposed to MAKE law up there....but this ruling comes pretty close if not actually doing it.

As always just my opinion, take it or leave it as you see fit [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I’m not surre where your coming up with this Arvon but you are way off .

Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This amendment basicaly states that individuals have rights even though they may not be specifically ennumerated in the constitution itself. Primary among these (according to the Supreme Court) is the right ot privacy. In this case the Court is saying that consenting adults do have the right to privacy.

Amendment 10: 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.

Basically the justices said that this ruling was covered by the 14th amendment and it’s equal protection clause. The 14th amendment, like any amendment is considered tobe part of the constitution. The equal protection of all citizens of this country is part of the constitution and therefore not left to the states to decide if they will protect only some of its citizens but the federal government who is charged to provide equal protection to ALL citizens.

Where, oh where, is that "ultra-conservative Supreme Court" that the Dems like to talk about handing the election to GWB? Well, this just shows how important 2004 is going to be.

What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me.

I think conservatives want to be able to barge into SOME peoples bedrooms. Their bedrooms are of course off limits.

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution.

<font color=deepskyblue>No, they didn't <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. Justice O'Connor specifically mentioned that it should have been struck down for violation of the 14th Amendment, but that was NOT the reason given by Justice Kennedy in his majority ruling.

<font color=white>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. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.</font>

The article also specifically mentioned that the ruling did not address the issue of the 14th Amendment violation.

<font color=white>Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.</font>

While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights. ;) Of course, the real "kicker" is that the Texas legislature can come right back and attempt to re-instate the law...so long as they rewrite it to apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. That way, they ARE within the "equal protection" parameters of the 14th Amendment, since the law is applied equally and without discrimination.</font>

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>By the same token, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. ;) </font>

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human.

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
That could have been it...but I believe I am correct and you are wrong...she caved...thats my opinion and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary so...Ill stick with it [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Wrong. Beastiality in fact will violate animal cruelty laws. A beast can't consent, you see. Scalia is an abject idiot, and always has been.

Wrong. Beastiality in fact will violate animal cruelty laws. A beast can't consent, you see. Scalia is an abject idiot, and always has been. </font>[/QUOTE]Wasn't Scalia the one that won the Free Speech award and bared recording devices at the award ceremony? ;)

I find it interesting that whenever some decides to no longer support the discrimination and/or persecution of a minority that they somehow cave into some special interest groups.
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>By the same token, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling.

B. Everyone selectively labels. It's called bias, and we all have it.

C. O'Connor, like other justices, notably Kennedy, has had her opinion change over time, becoming more conservative in certain areas and more mainstream in others. People are dynamic, thankfully. She is still a Repug showcase item, and was on the latest cover of NRO's magazine I believe.

D. With all of the beatings the right to privacy has taken in the past 2 years, we should all rejoice at any decision limiting the government playing nanny in our bedrooms. I may not be gay, and I may find the notion that one male can find another male's hairy smelly body attractive personally offensive to my senses, but I will NOT tell other people how to live their lives. I should be allowed to stick it in my wife's arse or mouth ("sodomy" = both of these, btw), and they should be allowed to do likewise with whomever they choose.

[quote]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

Quote:

<font color=white>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. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.</font> The article also specifically mentioned that the ruling did not address the issue of the 14th Amendment violation. <font color=white>Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.</font> While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights. ;) Of course, the real "kicker" is that the Texas legislature can come right back and attempt to re-instate the law...so long as they rewrite it to apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. That way, they ARE within the "equal protection" parameters of the 14th Amendment, since the law is applied equally and without discrimination.</font>

1. Justices applied some common sense here to maintain other parts of their agendas. A holding based on the equal protection clause paves a clear a fast path for claims for a right to gay marriage, a striking of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and many challenges to "dont ask dont tell." A majority of the justices don't want to do this.

2. Since this was decided on the right to privacy (is seems -- I have not read the opinion YET), the Texas legislature can NOT reinstate the law. Had it been decided on the 14th Amendment, then the Texas liegislature COULD reinstate the law -- so long as it was equally applicable to heteros.

3. Bonus question for all: where is the Right to Privacy in the US Constitution? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Woo Hoo! I wonder how this will effect the long jail sentences doled out to homosexuals for laws like these in South Carolina? As I recall some judge gave two guys more than five years for having oral sex in their home. Will they go free?

[img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] Yeah, send 'em to jail where there's no oral or anal sex between men. :rolleyes:

And, yes, Scalia was the one who would not allow the press in the room when he was being given an award for free speech. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

I got water up my nose, guys.

Good news! Nuff said!

Mark

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font>

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.

Besides, alot of the sodomy laws that may be effected by this ruling apply to heterosexuals as well. Anal sex, oral sex, and in some places, any sex thats not performed in the missionary position are all prohibited by theses laws, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is a victory for human rights, a victory for sexual rights, and a victory for the rights of privacy as well.

<font color=deepskyblue>By the same token, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling.
</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I was merely providing an example to illustrate that both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of applying "selective application" when it suits their needs, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. I wasn't debating the "legality" of either practice. But I appreciate you sharing the information about the courts upholding the practice of racial profiling. I didn't know that.</font>

[ 06-27-2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

So your saying gays and lesbians are not human. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Nope...I didn't say that at all, <font color=silver>IronDragon</font>. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Justice Kennedy said the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of homosexual persons"</font>. He did not say the law <font color=white>"demeans the lives of all persons"</font>. Hence, it is specifically a gay rights issue.

Thanks for the chuckle, though. ;) </font> [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Unless one implies that homosexuals are not part of humanity as a whole, then a law that demeans homosexuals, demeans all of humanity just as a microcosm relates to a bigger, more diverse macrocosm.

In other words since homosexuals are human and their rights of been improved, all of humanity's rights have been improved.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>That's a good counterargument, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>, but I disagree. Just because the rights of a particular segment of the population to participate in specific acts has been improved does not mean the rights of the general population overall have been improved. Some members of the overall population do not engage in these activities. Others live in states where this type of law applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The rights of those individuals has not been improved at all.

And - in the case of affirmitive action - the rights of one segment of the population are increased at the expense of rights to another segment. The two offset each other. While it is certainly an important victory for minorities seeking admission into universities, it is accomplished at the expense of others who may also have desired admittance into that same university.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I may be wrong, but I don't believe it will have an affect on the states that apply the law regardless of sexual orientation. It seems as if they would be protected under the 14th Amendment. <font color=tan>Timber</font> will have to let us know if that is true or not.

Of course, even if the law is written to apply unilaterally, the reality is that they are only enforced when the homosexuals are guilty of the offense. So I agree that it is a major victory for gay rights.

I will also agree that it is a major victory for privacy rights as well. Federal and state gov't has NO RIGHT to regulate the sexual activities of consenting adults within the privacy of their own home. What two (or more [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] ) consenting adults want to do in private is their business, and should not fall under the purview of state legislature.</font>

Well you are correct since Sandra Day O’Connor’s does need to listen to special interest groups to get re-elected to the court….no wait, she doesn’t’ need to do that. Um…she needs to stay popular in the pools…no, she doesn’t need that either. Explain to me again just why she would fall victim to those evil homosexual propagandists?

In Sandra day O’Connor’s biography by Thompson Gale it is noted that over the years justice O’Conner has shown a growing for minority rights. This includes racial, religious, disability and now sexual orientation minorities. O’Conner was the deciding vote in the above mentioned Michigan Affirmative Action case and wrote the majority opinion. O’Conner is getting criticism from the right because of her support of minority rights.

In her autobiography , "The Majesty of the Law." She reflects on her admiration and respect for former justice Powell. In 1986 justice Powel sided with O’Conner in upholding a Georgia anti-sodomy law, later Powell publicly stated that he regretted his decision to do so was wrong and fostered discrimination. O’Connor implied that she agreed with Powel in this matter.

All in all O’Conner has been becoming more liberal in views on civil rights. No grand conspiracy. Just the recofgnition that minorities do have protected rights in the United States

Sorry to disappoint.

I just read this:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle….[the defendants] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
From the majority opinion written by justice Kennedy.

In the minority opinion Scalia, was worried about the implication that this ruling would have on laws against masturbation. [no I am not kidding]

What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything.

What is so liberal about the court ruling the government should not have the right to barge into the bedroom of consenting adults and tell them how they can love each other? Sounds pretty conservitive to me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's libertarian. Conservatives want government limited to its proper roles, like defense. Libertarians want it to have as little role as possible in anything. </font>[/QUOTE]Attalus, I think you shot yourself in the foot on this one -- vis a vis your earlier post I mean. Unless you can make some argument that telling me what I can do with my penis in my bedroom is a "proper role," like defense. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

The right to privacy is my most treasured right. Privacy is disappearing, folks. It is a right we are losing. And, the sad fact is we are generally voluntarily giving this right away every time we shrug our shoulders when big corps. amass personal information about us and sell it amongst themselves. This may be one of the last big victories for privacy that we see.

Once we've given all our personal info to our credit card companies, eBay, and message boards, once we've let reality TV come into our bedrooms for the nth time, once we've all got websites with our personal at-home cameras filming our lives, we will not have a leg to stand on when the government walks back into our bedrooms to do a "masturbation check." (Yes, masturbation is still illegal in some states -- I think Scalia should move there and leave us the HELL alone.)

Wow, I remember you lefties screeching at Sen. Rick Santorum when he said the same thing. Methinks an apology is in order.

Just for information. In England anal sex in the privacy of your own home,between consenting males over 21 was legalised in 1966. Incredibly anal sex between a husband and wife remained illegal until 1994. The change was made in 1994 because of the promotion of safe sex.

Buggery Maximum Penalties

Between any two people both over 18 not in private (hotel rooms, a third person present etc.) 2 years

Between any two people, one over 18 and one 16-18 5 years (for the older one at least)

With an animal Life Imprisonment (buggery with an animal can be any sexual behaviour, not just, er... buggery)

With a dead animal No offence (A dead animal is considered food)

I wonder how these laws would treat the Apple Pie scene in American Pie. :1ponders:

It’s important to the religious right for some reason. Their strange view of government is to regulate bedroom activities along the lines their particular cult views as ‘proper.’ IMO the only time what every you care to do with your penis (or any body part) become public business is when your with a non-consenting individual of a creature that cannot consent.

I think it's great to be honest. And about bloody time too. You know there's so many homophobes around who swear they detest gay people and would have nothing to do with them etc. and yet they watch movies created by gay people, read their books, listen to their music, turn to them as lawyers for legal representation, buy groceries from them at the store...my point is they're everywhere just like straight people.

You know, I saw Elton John the other night on an american talk-show and thought to myself "Damn, people love him and his music to bits and yet technically he could be arrested in the USA for simply being what he is". A stupid law really.

[ 06-27-2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

Wow, I remember you lefties screeching at Sen. Rick Santorum when he said the same thing. Methinks an apology is in order. </font>[/QUOTE]Why? I think they are both overstating the case. BTW they were both commenting on the same case. As the deleted portion of what I wrote implied I find it humorous that this is the first think that leaps into the minds of the conservatives on this issue ;) .

Also, as TL pointed out, bestiality is not consensual sex. Since a animal can not give consent.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Ok a couple of things here.

1st. Sandra Day O'conner is known to be a capricious, whimsical person who repeatedly has practiced "fuzzy" logic in her descisions. She has been anything but a keen logical and reasoned justice.
You cannot disappoint me where SDO is involved..she is a joke as far as I am concerned and it can be argued that she only got her position because of her sex.

2nd [img]smile.gif[/img] why do homosexuals keep dragging themselves into this discussion? Sodomy (the issue at hand) is NOT the only method of sexual action between gays and lesbians. Gays and Lesbians do not solely seek out sodomy as their act of choice and it is not only Gays and Lesbians who practice Sodomy. I would think Lesbians have almost no practical issue with sodomy laws...and Using the Clintonian model of what sex is, it can be argued sodomy isn't even a sex act.

I think Scalia has the right of it...this case was all about the Homosexual pressures and action groups and far less about constitutional law.
</font>

[ 06-27-2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
That would be classified as "Criminal Abuse of a food stuff" :D </font>

You are wrong here Magik. Historicly sodomy laws were targeted vs any form of erotic contact that did not contribute to procreation, including masterbation. Over time these laws have been scaled back and repleaded, with this being the final step in that progress.

Personally, I think this move to push for more will be stymied. Despite O'Connors push for an equal protection holding, the Court decided this case based on privacy. We will quickly find that arguing it sets a precedent for gay marriage contradicts what the Court said. I think there is a clear reason the Court limited its holding to privacy, as I stated earlier.

You'll note that Kilgore in Virginia shares Arvon's and others' concern regarding the 10th Amendment and states' rights. States have complete police power EXCEPT where Congress or the Constitution provide otherwise. If there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, sodomy laws certainly offend that right. State's Rights are important, but cannot violate the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments make it very clear that neither the Federal Gummint nor States can violate the Constitution in passing laws. In short, the very nature of the Constitution is a limitation on State's rights, and the 10th Amendment only reserves "all other" powers to the States.

You'll note Idaho's attorney general's office still intends to enforce its "crimes against nature" law which will prevent acts between gays or with animals. I've already pointed out the distinction with beastiality. As for the rest of it, I'm offering 3 to 1 odds that IF Idaho does enforce its law, it will be the "next item up for bids" on the State and Supreme Court hit list.

Today's NY Times:
_____________________________________

Gays Celebrate, and Plan Campaign for Broader Rights
By DEAN E. MURPHY


SAN FRANCISCO, June 26 — Gay men and lesbians poured into the streets today to celebrate a Supreme Court decision striking down or strictly limiting the country's last remaining sodomy laws in 13 states.

From Florida to Alaska, thousands of revelers vowed to push for more legal rights, including same-sex marriages.

Gay activists, many in tears, called the ruling the most significant legal victory in the gay rights movement, likening the decision to the seminal civil rights case, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan. They predicted it would embolden the movement and, as in the segregation era, encourage more people to step forward and demand an end to prejudice.

"I feel like I have been walking six inches off the ground," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of many gay and lesbian groups based here in San Francisco, where revelers gathered in the Castro District. "The arsenal used against us, with sodomy laws being the foremost weapon, has been neutralized."

But the authorities in some states with sodomy laws warned against interpreting today's ruling too broadly. The Virginia attorney general, Jerry W. Kilgore, said the court had not created "any new rights for any particular group of people or the general population."

Mr. Kilgore, in a statement, also said the ruling did not prevent states "from recognizing that marriage is fundamentally between a man and a woman."

Even so, several legal scholars and gay and lesbian activists said the decision would probably have far-reaching implications for the popular discussion about gay rights.

Activists and scholars said that by essentially acknowledging gay relationships as legitimate, the Supreme Court justices gave the gay rights movement a new credibility in debates about marriage, partner benefits, adoption and parental rights.

"The court has put gay people in the mainstream of society for the first time," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "The court understands gay sexuality is not just about sex, it is about intimacy and relationships. Now there is a real respect for our relationships, as us almost as families, that is not seedy or marginal but very much a part of society."

Some critics of the ruling said they feared it for the same reasons.

Henry McMaster, the South Carolina attorney general, described the possible ramifications as "complex and troubling." While acknowledging that the ruling rendered his state's sodomy law ineffective, Mr. McMaster, a Republican, insisted that the state had a fundamental right to bar behavior considered "inappropriate and detrimental."

In Virginia, Mr. Kilgore, a Republican, accused the court of undermining "Virginia's right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our citizens."

In Texas, whose sodomy law was the basis of the case — Lawrence and Garner v. Texas — decided today, celebrations took place in the streets of Austin, Dallas and Houston.

"The decision is a clear indication that our Texas politicians in 2003 are out of sync with the rest of America," said Randall K. Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "Yesterday the relationship that I had with my boyfriend was illegal. Today it is legal, and this is one step in full equality for all Texans and for all Americans."

The authorities in Harris County, Tex., where John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in 1998 for having sex in Mr. Lawrence's apartment, said they had mixed feelings about the ruling.

"Obviously I am a little bit disappointed in the outcome because of the amount of work we put into it," said Bill Delmore, an assistant district attorney in Harris County, who was involved in the appeals of the case.

"But I have a lot more serious criminal offenses in files on my desk than this," Mr. Delmore said. "It is going to be something of a relief to leave the social implications and philosophy and all that behind, and just focus on putting the bad guys in prison."

Mr. Delmore, like the authorities in other states with sodomy laws, said today's ruling would have little impact on day-to-day law enforcement because the statutes had been rarely enforced.

In his 22 years with the Harris County district attorney's office, Mr. Delmore said, the only prosecution under the statute was that involving Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner.

More typically, he said, prosecutions of homosexual acts are brought under the state's public lewdness statute, which prohibits sexual acts — heterosexual as well as homosexual — in public places. Mr. Delmore said there was nothing in the today's decision that would prevent the au pursuit of those cases.

Similarly, in Idaho, an 1864 state law that forbids "crimes against nature" will still be applied to public sexual acts involving gays, said Michael Henderson, deputy attorney general. He added that the law would also still apply to acts with animals.

Advertisement





"The Supreme Court's decision applies to sodomy laws in certain cases," Mr. Henderson said. "We can't enforce our law of crimes against nature as it applies to private consenting adults now."

Speculation was already rife in several states about how today's decision might be leveraged by gay rights groups to attack other laws deemed antihomosexual.

In Texas, State Representative Warren Chisum said he expected a legal challenge to a law he wrote this year — called the Defense of Marriage Act — that bars Texas officials from recognizing same-sex unions performed in other states.

Mr. Chisum, a Pampa Republican, said today's ruling was nothing less than an assault on the ability of state legislators to uphold moral values. He said he had already assembled a group of lawyers to review how the marriage act might withstand a court challenge.

"It is kind of scary stuff," Mr. Chisum said. "I think the court really opened the Pandora's box here that legislatures are going to deal with for many years in the future if they are concerned about the moral values of this country."

Gay groups across the country said that Mr. Chisum's concern about new legal challenges was warranted. They said they intended to use today's victory to push for more legal rights and to ensure that the ruling on sodomy is not ignored.

"I am confident that never again will there be a serious claim made that a lesbian or gay person is a criminal based on the existence of a sodomy law and thereby fair game for being a victim of all sorts of other discriminatory state action," said Ms. Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Robin Tyler, a comic and producer in Los Angeles who helped organize some of the celebrations today, said many people were mindful of how difficult it had been for some civil rights decisions to become a reality in everyday life.

"This is just the beginning of the race for full equality," Ms. Tyler said. "There is going to be an enormous backlash from the radical right. It is not like everybody is going to suddenly say that now that we aren't criminals anymore, therefore we are entitled to housing, not getting beaten up and marriage."

Jane L. Dolkart, an associate professor of law at Southern Methodist University who specializes in sexuality and gender issues, said that today's decision did open a legal window for gay rights advocates, but that the court was in essence following the nation, not leading it.

Antihomosexual laws were already being removed from the books in most states, Professor Dolkart said, most notably in Georgia, the origin of the last major sodomy case to be heard by the Supreme Court, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. Today's ruling reverses that decision, which had upheld the Georgia statute.

"This ruling may have an effect that isn't strictly legal," Professor Dolkart said. "It may have an effect on the beliefs of people in this country."

Some gay groups, fearing the worst, had been preparing protests had the court ruled the other way. This morning they quickly printed up posters declaring "Terrific!" and "Victory!" and sent out e-mail messages with "talking points" for interviews with the news media.

As word of the ruling spread in San Francisco, a group gathered at the corner of Castro and Market Streets, where a rainbow flag — a symbol of the gay movement for the last 25 years — had regularly flown.

A small chorus of gay military veterans sang the national anthem as the rainbow flag was gently lowered, replaced with an American one.