Court Overturns Texas Sodomy Law

[netviper13]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/929327.asp?vts=062620031055&cp1=1

snippet: 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 were invalidated by Thursday's ruling.

Legal experts said the justices' reliance on the right to privacy in the decision in the Texas case also would topple laws in nine other states banning sodomy for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, except as they apply to public conduct.

All I have to say is it's about time. I'm glad to see that at least the justices in this country are no longer biggots. Also glad to hear that Sandra Day O'Connor is not retiring, as she's fairly moderate where Bush's new appointee would be insanely conservative (look at the track records of his lower federal-court appointees for proof on that one.)

[UDawg]

Sodomy laws are stupid.

[UDawg]

I can't find in the Constitution the right to privacy. :confused: I think the decision was wrong. Too bad we have judges who see things in the Constitution that arn't there. :(

[AshG]

New headline:

Sex no fun now that it's legal, couples claim

Heh. There goes the party.

[netviper13]

Originally posted by UDawg71
I can't find in the Constitution the right to privacy. :confused: I think the decision was wrong. Too bad we have judges who see things in the Constitution that arn't there. :(

First, the Court has long upheld an implied right to privacy, mostly stemming off the 4th Amendment.

Second, of course there is no explicit absolute right to privacy, because no society with a government will have that right. However most major court decisions involving privacy, especially within the confines of the home, have stated there is a right to privacy in certain matters within the home.

Third, because the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the decision, this also means the decision involved equal protection under the law. Regardless of your opinion on the privacy matter, you'd have to be insane to argue that Sodomy laws which specifically target homosexuals violate the Equal Protection Under the Law.

Fourth, if even the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, sees a right to privacy in the constitution, that proves the notion of strict constitutionalism is antiquated.

Fifth, we have a Necessary and Proper clause in the Constitution for a reason. Our founding fathers obviously could not foresee all the changes in the future, thus they not only included a system for amendments, but also a necessary and proper clause. Neither computers nor the internet is ever mentioned in the constitution thus, according to your logic, the Supreme Court can't rule on them.

Obviously this decision works on two grounds at best, or at worst still works on the 14th Amendment side.


LOL @ AshG :D

[1stFlight]

I think the overall picture is since when does the government need to come into my bedroom to make sure I'm having sex the "right" way??

If someone wants the government to enforce "family values" (read:morality), then they are the ones with issues.


Governement != morality

[UDawg]

Originally posted by netviper13
First, the Court has long upheld an implied right to privacy, mostly stemming off the 4th Amendment.

Second, of course there is no explicit absolute right to privacy, because no society with a government will have that right. However most major court decisions involving privacy, especially within the confines of the home, have stated there is a right to privacy in certain matters within the home.

Third, because the 14th Amendment is mentioned in the decision, this also means the decision involved equal protection under the law. Regardless of your opinion on the privacy matter, you'd have to be insane to argue that Sodomy laws which specifically target homosexuals violate the Equal Protection Under the Law.

Fourth, if even the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, sees a right to privacy in the constitution, that proves the notion of strict constitutionalism is antiquated.

Fifth, we have a Necessary and Proper clause in the Constitution for a reason. Our founding fathers obviously could not foresee all the changes in the future, thus they not only included a system for amendments, but also a necessary and proper clause. Neither computers nor the internet is ever mentioned in the constitution thus, according to your logic, the Supreme Court can't rule on them.

Obviously this decision works on two grounds at best, or at worst still works on the 14th Amendment side.


LOL @ AshG :D

Using both the 4th and 14th amendment are complete streaches of any interpritation. This is not a area for the courts. It a area for the Texas legislation. I said sadomy laws are stupid. This law should be repealed, just as Justice Thomas said in his decent.

So now what we have it the "right" to have sex with your sister, sex with a call-girl, sex with animals and we can have as many wives as we want. Brilliant ruling. Lets streach the 4th and 14th amendment as far as we can. :rolleyes: There is no right to privacy in the constitution. No matter who says what is antiquated. :rolleyes:

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
I think the overall picture is since when does the government need to come into my bedroom to make sure I'm having sex the "right" way??


This is the way I see it also. This is a legislative matter not a judicial matter. Repeal the stupid sodomy law and we don't have a problem.

[netviper13]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Using both the 4th and 14th amendment are complete streaches of any interpritation. This is not a area for the courts. It a area for the Texas legislation. I said sadomy laws are stupid. This law should be repealed, just as Justice Thomas said in his decent.

It becomes an issue for the courts when the state of Texas enforces a law that is unconstitutional. Whenver a law is unconstitutional, it becomes a matter for the courts to decide. So you're a strict constitutionalist, huh? Could you point out where before the 19th Amendment the word "woman" or "women" is used? What's that? Oh, right, it's not!. Thus, without an interpretation, women have no rights other than the right to vote according to the ideas you defend. Show me a court precedent in the last 20 years to only use explicitly defined constitutional text and I might believe you; but for now empirical evidence is on my side.


So now what we have it the "right" to have sex with your sister, sex with a call-girl, sex with animals and we can have as many wives as we want. Brilliant ruling. Lets streach the 4th and 14th amendment as far as we can. :rolleyes: There is no right to privacy in the constitution. No matter who says what is antiquated. :rolleyes:

No we do not have the right to have sex with animals, call-girls, or any other sort of circumstance under this ruling. It pertained to the definition of sodomy, which in the ruling was defined as oral/anal sex with another person, and in the Texas law overturned was defined as oral/anal sex with another person of the same sex. Thus, animal sex is out of the picture (regardless of what Vamp wants :p); incest was never defined under sodomy, and neither was prostitution.

Also, the 14th Amend comes even less close to doing so than the privacy reasoning does. All the 14th Amend argument says is that the law must apply equally to all persons; thus sodomy laws applying to homosexuals and not heterosexuals violate the 14th Amendment. I agree with O'Connor in that the 14th Amend should have been the sole reason for overturning, but still it's not like the world is going to end with this decision.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by netviper13
No we do not have the right to have sex with animals, call-girls, or any other sort of circumstance under this ruling. It pertained to the definition of sodomy, which in the ruling was defined as oral/anal sex with another person, and in the Texas law overturned was defined as oral/anal sex with another person of the same sex. Thus, animal sex is out of the picture (regardless of what Vamp wants :p); incest was never defined under sodomy, and neither was prostitution.



Go reread it. Read Kennedy's decision.

19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

It says citizens. If you are a citizen you cannot be denied the right to vote. Seem pretty clear women have the right to vote. You see this liberal interpitation as you did with the 19th amendment is what gave us the ruling we have today. :(

BTW no need to be nasty. :)

It wasn't unconstitutional except under the very loose and very liberal basis in which this case was judged.

[netviper13]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Go reread it. Read Kennedy's decision.

Ok, I grant that it does prevent the government from regulating private matters, but not all private matters. CNN's legal analyst has a very good answer to your very question.

"BLITZER: And what about the opponents of this decision who fear that this is going to create a slippery slope? If you allow sodomy right now among consenting adults, what about adultery, what about bestiality, what about these other forms of sex that are out there? Is it going to open up the door to polygamy, for example?

TOOBIN: Well, I think the opinion and the supporters of the right to privacy have always sort of walled off the question of marriage. Marriage has always been regulated by the state. Marriage is something that the government has plenty of control over, whether it's divorce laws, bigamy laws, but, you know, in Justice Scalia's dissent, he said this decision calls into question whether the government could regulate, say, masturbation. Well, you know what, I think he's right.

I think a decision like this means the government couldn't regulate masturbation. I think it does call into question any sort of law that regulates what goes on between adults, and I think it's important to emphasize adults, in private and in a noncoercive relationship, in a consensual relationship. I think any law that regulates that kind of conduct is in jeopardy today."

Basically it has to be two consenting adult humans under this interpretation, thus taking care of bestiality. Prostitution and incest may be given legal leeway under the decision, but heck half the south was already doing that :p


19th

It says citizens. If you are a citizen you cannot be denied the right to vote. Seem pretty clear women have the right to vote. You see this liberal interpitation as you did with the 19th amendment is what gave us the ruling we have today. :(

I said the 19th Amend specifically applies to women, but nothing else in the constitution prior to that does without interpretation. Let's take a look at the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal...". Does this mean that women are not given the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? No, unless you choose not to interpret the words.

Many major documents in the world, a perfect example being the UN Declaration of Human Rights, use gendered language that only applies to women by interpreting the word "man" or "men" to include women as well.

Thus interpretations are necessary in everyday life.


It wasn't unconstitutional except under the very loose and very liberal basis in which this case was judged.

Blatantly unconstitutional in the sense of the 14th Amendment. The Texas law said oral/anal intercourse was legal for consenting heterosexuals, but not for consenting homosexuals.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "Section 1. 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."

[Sazar]

all I have to say is about time :)

was listening to NPR news on the way home coz I station surfed and they were talking about this..

the two guys who headed the case on either side spoke and boy was there a contrast :)

ah well.. least 13 states or whatever number it was with sodomy laws or variations of it will have to fess up and move into the 21st century :D

come on florida... I know there's lots of old people here... but dang... bout time :)

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by Sazar
all I have to say is about time :)

word :) and thats all i have to say

[LORD-eX-Bu]

meh, its a pretty stupid law, but if you got caught breakin' it by the police in your own home, after they busted in when a neighbor reported a disturbance next door you deserve to spend the night in jail:p

I bet they'd enjoy it more in jail anyways, seeing how nobody would really have a problem with it, they'd have more variety in their "pickin's" and heck, what are they gonna do if they catch you doin' it there? send ya to prison?!?!!?!?:rofl

meh, don't care about it, heck, don't care about gays and junk until they get in my way or bother me. If they do, they better run:kill:

[UDawg]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
meh, its a pretty stupid law, but if you got caught breakin' it by the police in your own home, after they busted in when a neighbor reported a disturbance next door you deserve to spend the night in jail:p


To be fair the neighbor wanted to get even with the two men so he faked a 911 call saying there was a emergency situation at the two men's house. The cops busted in and found them doing the deed. They did not want to arrest them but they had to so that is where we ended up. The neighbor was an ar$$ for faking the 911 call. See blame this on stupid nosey neighbors. :mad:
Look at it this way now we can marry as many women as we want, cuz I have a right to privacy and you cannot enforce moral laws anymore. :rolleyes: Brilliant!

[Phyre]

This is where I like biology. "Taking it up the poop shoot" = no offspring as of now, and visa versa for empty void giving it to empty void. Either it will produce offspring or not. Either way this "current genetic makeup" isn't working.

Phyre

[legion88]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Using both the 4th and 14th amendment are complete streaches of any interpritation. This is not a area for the courts. It a area for the Texas legislation. I said sadomy laws are stupid. This law should be repealed, just as Justice Thomas said in his decent.

So now what we have it the "right" to have sex with your sister, sex with a call-girl, sex with animals and we can have as many wives as we want. Brilliant ruling. Lets streach the 4th and 14th amendment as far as we can. :rolleyes: There is no right to privacy in the constitution. No matter who says what is antiquated. :rolleyes:

For reference....


The 4th amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


The 14th amendment states:
Section. 1. 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.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/


As already noted, Texas law was targetting specific individuals and therefore did not provide "equal protection" under the law.
These targeted individuals were, of course, not killing anyone or destroying property, or stealing property, or causing harm to another person. In other words, they were not violating any other law. They were simply targeted by bigotted religious nutcases. These nutcases were successful in passing laws in their state so that these targeted groups would be in violation of a law.

(Homosexuals, of course, are not the only targeted people. There are other laws specifically written to single out other groups as well.)

It is the duty of the Supreme Court to overturn any state laws created by low IQ, bigotted, arrogant, know-it-all, religious nutcases, provided that these laws violated the constitution. Not trying to carry out this duty would be un-American. Showing support for the state, knowing full well the prime duties of the Supreme Court, would also be un-American.