From www.washingtonpost.com:
In a victory for gay rights, the court rules, 6-3, the law violated constitutional privacy rights.
Full Version: High Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law
What a nice present right in time for Pride Day. Also nice to see a 6 to 3 victory on this one instead of a 5 to 4.
Its about time these laws got taken off the books.
Its about time these laws got taken off the books.
These are all unanimously great sentiments being expressed but don't you suppose it would make sense to combine the THREE separate threads ongoing about this ruling into ONE....just a thought -- I'm certainly not trying to detract from any of the euphoria on this historic day....YEAH!!
Of course, this is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a huge step forward. Worth noting are Scalia's repulsive comments in his dissent -- which he read from the bench (that's fairly unusual practice, apparently). He berated the court for "signing on to the homosexual agenda" (while adding that he had "nothing against homosexuals personally" -- LOL!) and complained that the court was "taking sides in the culture wars" -- as if his dissent wasn't doing the same thing.
Moderators - I have no objection 't all if you merge this thread into the others. I started it in glee without reading the rest of the threads...GatorJamie
Very intresting how they had this fall into the right to privacy, rather than equal protection. Ms. Lawyer GJ, dont you think the equal protection would have opened more doors?
I actually think the equal protection would have been worse, then sodomy laws that apply only to gays would have to be altered to be sodomy laws for all. Which we all know still discriminates against gay people. They gave us the best ruling possible.
PF,
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding that the equal protection route would have been less effective. I think ruling due to equal protection would only have invalidated the 4 state sodomy laws that ban homosexual sodomy exclusively. The other states that have sodomy laws that cover everyone would have remained intact.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding that the equal protection route would have been less effective. I think ruling due to equal protection would only have invalidated the 4 state sodomy laws that ban homosexual sodomy exclusively. The other states that have sodomy laws that cover everyone would have remained intact.
No one had the slightest doubt who the 3 dissenters were, right? Creeps.
Plus, in the Colorado Amendment 2 case, Romer v. Evans, the Court already pointed out that Equal Protection analysis could be applied to laws which explicitly discriminate against homosexuals (although not applied at the same level that anti-black or anti-Jew laws must face). I think.
Philly Fan, equal protection would have left the sodomy laws in place in nine states.
Yeah!!!!!!!!! Whew, thank God the court came to its senses. I was surprised it was 6-3, however, I was expecting 5-4 like many of the recent cases. Whatever, I'll take it.
What can you expect from someone like Scalia who has never really cared about gays or gay rights. I am not a fan of Clarence Thomas but at least his dissent was reasonable and not full of Scalia's bitterness. Thomas stated that he ruled the way he did because the word "privacy" is not in the Constitution and also added that if he were a Texas lawmaker he would have voted to repeal the ban.
I'm guessing that Thomas thought this should have gone to the state lawmakers for a vote in order to get rid of the ban rather than the courts doing it, which is an acceptable dissent (not one I necessarily agree with, but at least he's going the legal route rather than the "Well I just don't like gays route".)
I think using the word "privacy" is much more effective than "equal protection", because using "e.p" makes it sound as though gays were getting preferential treatment (even though it's not, many would take it that way), where if it is struck down on the basis of "privacy" - who can argue against that? At least that's my understanding.
What can you expect from someone like Scalia who has never really cared about gays or gay rights. I am not a fan of Clarence Thomas but at least his dissent was reasonable and not full of Scalia's bitterness. Thomas stated that he ruled the way he did because the word "privacy" is not in the Constitution and also added that if he were a Texas lawmaker he would have voted to repeal the ban.
I'm guessing that Thomas thought this should have gone to the state lawmakers for a vote in order to get rid of the ban rather than the courts doing it, which is an acceptable dissent (not one I necessarily agree with, but at least he's going the legal route rather than the "Well I just don't like gays route".)
I think using the word "privacy" is much more effective than "equal protection", because using "e.p" makes it sound as though gays were getting preferential treatment (even though it's not, many would take it that way), where if it is struck down on the basis of "privacy" - who can argue against that? At least that's my understanding.
By making this a broader ruling... i'm finding it hard to see how this ruling can be used to further, specific "gay" rights.
IE not allowing this to be used as a roadmap to sue for say.... marriage. However, this ruling was sort of a no-brainer.
thinking about it, doesnt santorum now have his man on dog sex he was afraid of?
IE not allowing this to be used as a roadmap to sue for say.... marriage. However, this ruling was sort of a no-brainer.
thinking about it, doesnt santorum now have his man on dog sex he was afraid of?
How does this equate to man on dog? They ruled on cases of human to human sodomy. There is still on Bestiality law in Texas, so man on dog was always OK there.
Phillyfan, you're not making any sense. If they had made the Equal Protection case, then it would still be illegal for me to have sex in VA. They made all sodomy laws illegal. I guess for you, they should have made all sodomy laws illegal and then gone back and made the laws in the 4 states with gay only laws extra-unconstitutional. They could rule on right to privacy and on equal protection, it would be pointless. They did gays a much bigger favor by ruling on all sodomy laws. Anywhere in the press that you read considered the ruling on right to privacy to be a much bigger win for gays than the equal protection. The win on equal protection would have just been a split the middle ruling to try and appease everyone.
[ June 26, 2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: DC_guy ]
Phillyfan, you're not making any sense. If they had made the Equal Protection case, then it would still be illegal for me to have sex in VA. They made all sodomy laws illegal. I guess for you, they should have made all sodomy laws illegal and then gone back and made the laws in the 4 states with gay only laws extra-unconstitutional. They could rule on right to privacy and on equal protection, it would be pointless. They did gays a much bigger favor by ruling on all sodomy laws. Anywhere in the press that you read considered the ruling on right to privacy to be a much bigger win for gays than the equal protection. The win on equal protection would have just been a split the middle ruling to try and appease everyone.
[ June 26, 2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: DC_guy ]
QUOTE
doesnt santorum now have his man on dog sex he was afraid of?
Oh, that was already legal in Texas, except possibly if the dog was the same sex.
I guess that explains the Bush twins
what my lawyer buddy says...
The language of the case is quite moving. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, writes in the majority that the contiued validity of the Bowers v. Hardwick case "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." The case, while noting valid equal protection arguments, instead adopts the privacy argument emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the Court fears that, under an equal-protection analysis, states might then just criminalize heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. The Court also reaffirms its earlier holding in Romer that invalidated the Colorado statute making it illegal to pass nondiscrimination statutes protecting gays.
Kennedy goes out of his way to indicate that the opinion should "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." I suspect that Kennedy would not join a majority (and he is the fifth vote) to hold that the state is constitutionally required to give formal recognition to gay relationships.
O'Connor concurs in the result, arguing that Bowers should not be overruled, but that equal protection forbids treating gay people differently from straight people. I suspect that she might be willing to sign on to a gay marriage requirement on equal protection grounds, and I have no doubt that the other four members of the Lawrence majority would do so. She could not very easily reject gay marriage based on the language of her concurrence.
Justice Thomas dissents, but indicates that he believes that sodomy laws are politically repugnant and were he a legislator, he would vote to repeal them. He just does not believe that the issue rises to the level of constitutional protection.
Thus, you have seven out of nine saying the law sucks, six willing to throw it out, but only five willing to declare all sodomy laws unconstitutional as they relate to private, consensual conduct between or among consenting adults.
The language of the case is quite moving. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, writes in the majority that the contiued validity of the Bowers v. Hardwick case "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." The case, while noting valid equal protection arguments, instead adopts the privacy argument emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the Court fears that, under an equal-protection analysis, states might then just criminalize heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. The Court also reaffirms its earlier holding in Romer that invalidated the Colorado statute making it illegal to pass nondiscrimination statutes protecting gays.
Kennedy goes out of his way to indicate that the opinion should "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." I suspect that Kennedy would not join a majority (and he is the fifth vote) to hold that the state is constitutionally required to give formal recognition to gay relationships.
O'Connor concurs in the result, arguing that Bowers should not be overruled, but that equal protection forbids treating gay people differently from straight people. I suspect that she might be willing to sign on to a gay marriage requirement on equal protection grounds, and I have no doubt that the other four members of the Lawrence majority would do so. She could not very easily reject gay marriage based on the language of her concurrence.
Justice Thomas dissents, but indicates that he believes that sodomy laws are politically repugnant and were he a legislator, he would vote to repeal them. He just does not believe that the issue rises to the level of constitutional protection.
Thus, you have seven out of nine saying the law sucks, six willing to throw it out, but only five willing to declare all sodomy laws unconstitutional as they relate to private, consensual conduct between or among consenting adults.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
what my lawyer buddy says...
The language of the case is quite moving. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, writes in the majority that the contiued validity of the Bowers v. Hardwick case \"demeans the lives of homosexual persons.\" The case, while noting valid equal protection arguments, instead adopts the privacy argument
Any time I would have argued against the Texas law, I would merely have stayed with the equal protection issues as the basis of my argument rather than focus on privacy because that's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. I also figured that the Supreme Court would only give a limited victory.what my lawyer buddy says...
The language of the case is quite moving. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, writes in the majority that the contiued validity of the Bowers v. Hardwick case \"demeans the lives of homosexual persons.\" The case, while noting valid equal protection arguments, instead adopts the privacy argument
I'm beyond thrilled that the Court chose the far reaching privacy argument.
more.... about that CO ruling
In Romer, the Court held that a statute in Colorado making it illegal for cities to pass ordinances protecting gays from discrimination and employment. The Supreme Court held that statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Interestingly, in his dissent, Justice Scalia argues that the Court has essentially opened the door to gay marriage and could not logically vote against it based on the reasoning of the Lawrence opinion. Thus, one wonders, although Scalia dissents from this case with Chief Justice Rehnquist, would they then feel compelled to vote that statutes banning gay marriage are unconstitutional out of respect for prior precedent? Scalia may have put himself in a very uncomfy position if he ever has to vote...
The most interest constitutional aspect of the opinion appears to be that the Court is signaling that statutes restricting the private, consensual conduct of persons will be invalidated, whether or not the particular behavior at issue is deemed a fundamental right. That is a huge expansion of constitutional law, if the Court means what it says.
In Romer, the Court held that a statute in Colorado making it illegal for cities to pass ordinances protecting gays from discrimination and employment. The Supreme Court held that statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Interestingly, in his dissent, Justice Scalia argues that the Court has essentially opened the door to gay marriage and could not logically vote against it based on the reasoning of the Lawrence opinion. Thus, one wonders, although Scalia dissents from this case with Chief Justice Rehnquist, would they then feel compelled to vote that statutes banning gay marriage are unconstitutional out of respect for prior precedent? Scalia may have put himself in a very uncomfy position if he ever has to vote...
The most interest constitutional aspect of the opinion appears to be that the Court is signaling that statutes restricting the private, consensual conduct of persons will be invalidated, whether or not the particular behavior at issue is deemed a fundamental right. That is a huge expansion of constitutional law, if the Court means what it says.
This is a victory for every gay man, woman and transgendered person in the good ole USA. Scalia, you are an ***hole!!!! :mad:
All the Bush apologists should remember that time after time Bush has said that the nutcase Scalia is the type of person he wants on the Supreme Court.
hmmmm, so much for being called a "conservative" court.... Maybe they can help out with the clinton doma law?
look at what Jerry Kilgore (famous for the Affirmative Action repeal from Virginia Tech) said today. From NBC 12 News He said basically it may not apply to Virginia, because we are still focused on Jamestown Era (what it sounds like to me).
oops, that's what I get for not reading the decision...
Apparently Scalia ACTUALLY wrote:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
Sorry, Anty!
Apparently Scalia ACTUALLY wrote:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
Sorry, Anty!
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
wink .... Maybe they can help out with the clinton doma law?
You should make that your cause, with Howard Dean by your side you can do it!
wink .... Maybe they can help out with the clinton doma law?
Many ofyou have brought up the "equal protection" angle of the argument.
It should be noted that Justice O'Connor did note in her writing that she also objected to the fact that many of these laws punished homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy.
[ June 26, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
It should be noted that Justice O'Connor did note in her writing that she also objected to the fact that many of these laws punished homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy.
QUOTE
A sixth justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, also voted to strike down the law, but on the separate basis that it was unfair to punish oral and anal sex between homosexuals but not the same conduct between heterosexuals.[from washington post]
I am heartened that a man as conservative as Justice Kennedy would write for the 6-3 opinion finding logic, legality, constitutionality and commonsense in the abolition of anti-gay sodomy laws. [ June 26, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Here are all four opinions. They're pdf files so if you don't have adobe acrobat on your computer, they might not open.
Justice Kennedy writing for the 6-3 majority:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zo.pdf
Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zc.pdf
Justice Scalia writing the dissenting opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf
Justice Thomas writing his own dissenting opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd1.pdf
[ June 26, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: antarctica17 ]
Justice Kennedy writing for the 6-3 majority:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zo.pdf
Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zc.pdf
Justice Scalia writing the dissenting opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf
Justice Thomas writing his own dissenting opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd1.pdf
[ June 26, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: antarctica17 ]
CNN's (Wolfs) question of the day is " Do you agree with the Supreme Court (Sodomy) ruling today"? Currently 82 % said yes, 18% say no. 
I have been home all day painting my dining room (appropriately enough - "American Traditions" paint) and have been watching CNN all day - this has been a top story, and it has been fun to watch the right wing "pro-family" groups sputter and spew in their disgust.
It has been implied by the correspondents that the Texas law was overturned both on privacy and equal protection grounds, although from previous posts that seems in question. Certainly we need equal protection grounds to fight for gay rights, but I would think the CO case and the noting of legitimate equal protection grounds in both Kennedy's and O'Connor's decisions gives a strong legal basis.
I wonder, given his dissent, how Thomas would vote on a gay marriage/equal protection argument - he has surprised Court watchers with a couple of votes.
The only downside I can see is this kind of move forward for gays all too often results in a backlash, and that can get violent. As with abortion, I really believe the more fringe elements of the anti-gay movement will resort to violence as their cause unravels in the courts, the legislatures and the court of public opinion. Y'all be careful out there, ya here?
Gotta run, Fallwell is on CNN
It has been implied by the correspondents that the Texas law was overturned both on privacy and equal protection grounds, although from previous posts that seems in question. Certainly we need equal protection grounds to fight for gay rights, but I would think the CO case and the noting of legitimate equal protection grounds in both Kennedy's and O'Connor's decisions gives a strong legal basis.
I wonder, given his dissent, how Thomas would vote on a gay marriage/equal protection argument - he has surprised Court watchers with a couple of votes.
The only downside I can see is this kind of move forward for gays all too often results in a backlash, and that can get violent. As with abortion, I really believe the more fringe elements of the anti-gay movement will resort to violence as their cause unravels in the courts, the legislatures and the court of public opinion. Y'all be careful out there, ya here?
Gotta run, Fallwell is on CNN
Wow! I had this pessimistic feeling in the pit of my stomach, fully expecting the ruling to go the other way. Sometimes I am so glad to be wrong! It's not like all the problems we face are just suddenly going to disappear, but this is a solid foundation upon which to keep building. Gosh, I'm happy now
***My three favorite lines from the MAJORITY OPINION***
"BOWERS was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. BOWERS v. HARDWICK should be and now IS overruled."
Thank you Justice Kennedy! Music to my ears!
:cool:
"BOWERS was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. BOWERS v. HARDWICK should be and now IS overruled."
Thank you Justice Kennedy! Music to my ears!
:cool:
QUOTE
puckman1:
CNN's (Wolfs) question of the day is \" Do you agree with the Supreme Court (Sodomy) ruling today\"? Currently 82 % said yes, 18% say no.
While Falwell, Robertson and all the "radical conservatives" will undoubtedly take exception with those poll results, I'd say it disproves the notion that the American public is becoming LESS liberal in their views....hearing about the ruling this morning made my day! CNN's (Wolfs) question of the day is \" Do you agree with the Supreme Court (Sodomy) ruling today\"? Currently 82 % said yes, 18% say no.
QUOTE
\"If there's no rational basis for prohibiting same-sex sodomy by consenting adults, then state laws prohibiting prostitution, adultery, bigamy, and incest are at risk,\" Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, said. \"No doubt, homosexual activists will try to bootstrap this decision into a mandate for same-sex marriage. Any attempt to equate sexual perversion with the institution that is the very foundation of society is as baseless as this ruling.\"
This group, "Concerned Harpies for Bitching" oops! I meant "Concerned Women for America", is just ridiculous. Especially Sandy Rios.I mean.... what "law against adultery" is she talking about? When is the last time a straight man was prosecuted in a court of law for adultery with a woman?
And if we were to enforce such a law, wouldn't many people in her own organization and many others in the christian evangelical movement be prosecuted under said law? Why don't they step forward and volunteer to do jail time in order to set an example for the betterment of America?
Here is a picture of the two gents who took this all the way to the Supreme Court and helped change history of gay rights in this country. Like an earlier poster stated, for this to coincide with gay pride week in several major cities, is like icing on the cake. I am pretty sure that alot of us will be celebrating in our own way, sort of like a married couple on the first night of their wedding!! eek!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../168/4ieni.html
[ June 26, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: SmoothRon ]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../168/4ieni.html
[ June 26, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: SmoothRon ]
QUOTE
SmoothRon:
Here is a picture of the two gents who took this all the way to the Supreme Court and helped change history of gay rights in this country. chhttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030626/168/4ieni.html
I wish they were better looking. The one guy looks like somebody stepped on his face.
Here is a picture of the two gents who took this all the way to the Supreme Court and helped change history of gay rights in this country. chhttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030626/168/4ieni.html
Anybody for Tex-Mex and a blow job? Flights are on me, if you pay the hotel! wink 
How about a Louisiana cookout, and a threesome?
Last call: A North Carolina barbeque and a round of massages from the Duke sportsman of your choice?
(WARNING...WARNING: Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinion of Outsports.com).
[ June 26, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
How about a Louisiana cookout, and a threesome?
Last call: A North Carolina barbeque and a round of massages from the Duke sportsman of your choice?
(WARNING...WARNING: Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinion of Outsports.com).
[ June 26, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
QUOTE
William1865:
I wish they were better looking. The one guy looks like somebody stepped on his face.
Whoa, one sorta looks like chelsea clinton....
I wish they were better looking. The one guy looks like somebody stepped on his face.
Just to let you know where the nation stands.
The CNN poll numbers look very good. But it should be noted that CNN has differing demographics than FoxNews.
So then, it was very interesting to see a poll taken in Kentucky (need I say that it's conservative here?)
In the most recent numbers, 67%(8770 people) agreed with the Supremes decision vs 33%(4303) who disagreed with the ruling.
The times they are a changing.
The CNN poll numbers look very good. But it should be noted that CNN has differing demographics than FoxNews.
So then, it was very interesting to see a poll taken in Kentucky (need I say that it's conservative here?)
In the most recent numbers, 67%(8770 people) agreed with the Supremes decision vs 33%(4303) who disagreed with the ruling.
The times they are a changing.
A poll on the Houston Chronicle website had similar numbers... encouraging, since the fundies usually try to load those things. The "christian" right is going absolutely bonkers between this and the Canadian gay marriage thing. Falwell's head may explode.
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
HARDCORE LEGAL ANALYSIS TO FOLLOW
The U.S. Supreme Court decision today in Lawrence v, Texas is huge and historic. It is being mischaracterized as a gay rights victory. It is much more than that. It is a fundamentally libertarian/conservative decision that will advance the cause of limited government.
I knew the Supremes were going to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick. Of course they were. Why else grant cert? But I thought it would be a very narrow equal protection based decision -- probably authored by Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't. That was O'Connor's concurrence, in which no other justice bought into. Not even the liberals Souter and Ginsburg.
This was a decision that endorsed limited government. It is a decision that strongly endorsed the concept of privacy in one's own home. It will have far reaching consequences that will be felt over the next several years of federal court jurisprudence.
The basis of Justice Kennedy's decision is that there are areas of one's privacy -- sexual activity just being one -- into which the government cannot intrude. Point to ponder: where does this leave the enforcement of other so-called "victimless" crimes? In particular: the War on Drugs? The criminalization of the use of drugs in one's own home (but not the sale of drugs in public) cannot stand up to the reasoning set forth in the Majority Opinion. Again: limited government, as defined by the libertarian wing of conservatism. Thomas Jefferson would be ecstatic.
Also, Roe v. Wade, for better or worse, is even more firmly entrenched in the law. One of the cases that Court relied on most heavily in its reasoning was Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which this almost exact court upheld Roe by the skin of Sandra Day O'Connor's teeth. This was unexpectedly included in the majority decision.
The decision even includes what I'm calling the Rick Santorum memorial paragraph:
The bottom line: a man's home is a castle. And you can sodomize another consenting adult in your castle.
Finally, one other point that an earlier poster accurately identified: Clarence Thomas's dissent is fundamentally different from the Scalia/Rehnquist dissent. Clarence Thomas's dissent represents an honest application of federalism: the states have the right to pass stupid laws. Thomas even called the Texas law "uncommonly silly." I don't think Rehnquist and Scalia are as honest about applying fundamental principles of federalism. To those who think Justice Thomas is just the mindless puppet of Scalia, you owe Justice Thomas an apology.
This is an historic day.
HARDCORE LEGAL ANALYSIS TO FOLLOW
The U.S. Supreme Court decision today in Lawrence v, Texas is huge and historic. It is being mischaracterized as a gay rights victory. It is much more than that. It is a fundamentally libertarian/conservative decision that will advance the cause of limited government.
I knew the Supremes were going to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick. Of course they were. Why else grant cert? But I thought it would be a very narrow equal protection based decision -- probably authored by Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't. That was O'Connor's concurrence, in which no other justice bought into. Not even the liberals Souter and Ginsburg.
This was a decision that endorsed limited government. It is a decision that strongly endorsed the concept of privacy in one's own home. It will have far reaching consequences that will be felt over the next several years of federal court jurisprudence.
The basis of Justice Kennedy's decision is that there are areas of one's privacy -- sexual activity just being one -- into which the government cannot intrude. Point to ponder: where does this leave the enforcement of other so-called "victimless" crimes? In particular: the War on Drugs? The criminalization of the use of drugs in one's own home (but not the sale of drugs in public) cannot stand up to the reasoning set forth in the Majority Opinion. Again: limited government, as defined by the libertarian wing of conservatism. Thomas Jefferson would be ecstatic.
Also, Roe v. Wade, for better or worse, is even more firmly entrenched in the law. One of the cases that Court relied on most heavily in its reasoning was Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which this almost exact court upheld Roe by the skin of Sandra Day O'Connor's teeth. This was unexpectedly included in the majority decision.
The decision even includes what I'm calling the Rick Santorum memorial paragraph:
QUOTE
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not be easily refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. This case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to the homosexual lifestyle.
This is not about pedophelia, Senator. It is not about incest. It is about a adult doing something in the privacy of his own home.The bottom line: a man's home is a castle. And you can sodomize another consenting adult in your castle.
Finally, one other point that an earlier poster accurately identified: Clarence Thomas's dissent is fundamentally different from the Scalia/Rehnquist dissent. Clarence Thomas's dissent represents an honest application of federalism: the states have the right to pass stupid laws. Thomas even called the Texas law "uncommonly silly." I don't think Rehnquist and Scalia are as honest about applying fundamental principles of federalism. To those who think Justice Thomas is just the mindless puppet of Scalia, you owe Justice Thomas an apology.
This is an historic day.
QUOTE
I wish they were better looking. The one guy looks like somebody stepped on his face.
Yeah, they're probably ugly Log Cabin Republicans or something. 
Their looks really put a damper on the SCOTUS decision, didn't it William1865? Jesus f**king Christ I thought you were'nt coming back! :mad: I, for one, couldn't be HAPPIER today even if those guys didn't come from the covers of GQ.
It's a landmark day in Gay History!
QUOTE
bluebird48234:
Anybody for Tex-Mex and a blow job? Flights are on me, if you pay the hotel! wink
How about a Louisiana cookout, and a threesome?
Last call: A North Carolina barbeque and a round of massages from the Duke sportsman of your choice?
(WARNING...WARNING: Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinion of Outsports.com).
Bluebird, I am happy I can now have non-missionary stle sex in both Texas and NC. But Ill take the UNC sportsman of my choice (former Tarheel Brian Bersticker) instead of Duke.Anybody for Tex-Mex and a blow job? Flights are on me, if you pay the hotel! wink
How about a Louisiana cookout, and a threesome?
Last call: A North Carolina barbeque and a round of massages from the Duke sportsman of your choice?
(WARNING...WARNING: Opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinion of Outsports.com).
And I guess since Im having lunch at a mexican place tomorrow with the office, Ill give my boyfriend some head afterwards.
See further discussion of this important topic in two additional threads, since closed:
Sodomy decision Thursday: rallies around the country!
and
Sodomy Laws: Supreme Court Action Soon
Sodomy decision Thursday: rallies around the country!
and
Sodomy Laws: Supreme Court Action Soon
Atlanta newspaper has a column by a gay writer on its website that talks about how he feels about it as a gay person. And a poll, about 2-1 in favor.
http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/c...premecourt.html
[Corrected link - Outsports moderator]
[ June 26, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]
http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/c...premecourt.html
[Corrected link - Outsports moderator]
[ June 26, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]
A quote from an e-mail I got from someone who lives in Canada: "Welcome to the 1960's!"
And to paraphrase bluebird: The following opinion expressed in this post is the opinion of the writer alone and no one else connected with Outsports.com in any way.
I hope Antonin Scalia's death is long, drawn-out and excruciatingly painful.
And to paraphrase bluebird: The following opinion expressed in this post is the opinion of the writer alone and no one else connected with Outsports.com in any way.
I hope Antonin Scalia's death is long, drawn-out and excruciatingly painful.
QUOTE
I hope Antonin Scalia's death is long, drawn-out and excruciatingly painful.
Well put!"Let me be clear that I have nothing against Judge Scalia..."
[ June 26, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
On "Charlie Rose" tonight:
Nina Totenberg; Kenji Yoshino, a professor at Yale Law; and Michael Carvin, who was in DOJ under Reagan.
[ June 26, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
Nina Totenberg; Kenji Yoshino, a professor at Yale Law; and Michael Carvin, who was in DOJ under Reagan.
[ June 26, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
QUOTE
Jason Cottrell:
look at what Jerry Kilgore (famous for the Affirmative Action repeal from Virginia Tech) said today.
n.b.: Jerry Kilgore is AG of Virginia.look at what Jerry Kilgore (famous for the Affirmative Action repeal from Virginia Tech) said today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/national/27REAC.html
QUOTE
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.\"
....
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.\"
....
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.
....
So, Rick Santorum, you can sleep easily tonight. In Idaho, at least.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.\"
....
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.\"
....
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.
....
[ June 26, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
This all must be the reason Strom Thurmond kicked the bucket today! Yes, you heard me.
Congratulations to all of you, from north of the border. I share your joy at this long-overdue court ruling
"The state has no business in the nation's bedrooms"...Pierre Trudeau, 1968 (upon legalizing homosex in Canada). I wonder if we will hear a similar declaration coming from the lips of the Governors of Texas and the other states affected by this decision.
[ June 27, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]
"The state has no business in the nation's bedrooms"...Pierre Trudeau, 1968 (upon legalizing homosex in Canada). I wonder if we will hear a similar declaration coming from the lips of the Governors of Texas and the other states affected by this decision.
[ June 27, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.