Top Stories - AP

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, 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.

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. 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.

Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

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 In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case — Bowers v. Hardwick — as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.

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.

At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose.

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.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

Quoted:
How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision?

What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business.  PERIOD.

Quoted:
How could anyone on this board not agree with the Court's decision?

What goes on in the bedroom (between consenting adults) is NOT the government's business.  PERIOD.

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.

Quoted:
Just because it is between two consenting adults doesn't mean anything.  If it is against the law, there is no sacred ground, like in a married couples bedroom.

the state is supposed to protect people from what the majority believes is wrong/ or damaging

Quoted:


As much as I find male homosexual sex utterly revolting, I agree with you, Chimbo. I see NOTHING in the Constitution that could be interpreted as restricting sexual activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms.

OTOH, they'll still have to answer to the Big Guy, and His rulings are truly FINAL.

Quoted:
DriftPunch, you beat me to it ...

Quoted:
God judges Nations, as well as individuals. God judges BOTH more harshly if they were once His, in an effort to get them to return to Him!!

A Nation that abandons God, is a Nation under judgement. Can you see that judgement on the US today?? [:D]

Quoted:
No matter what the 7 political appointees agree on, Deviance is still deviance.

Quoted:
No matter what the 7 political appointees agree on, Deviance is still deviance.

Quoted:

You missed the point there buddy.  The law was/is unjust, and went to the highest authority for discussion.  If people simply followed the rules presented to them without questioning, we'd be in big trouble, as every assinine law that came from any Fed/State/Local legislature, would have to be followed lock stock and barrel without discussion and/or challenge.  After all, it is the LAW, right.



The Constitution has a bill or rights to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the masses.  Always keep in mind, if the abolition and confiscation of "Assault Rifles" were put to a refferendum, we'd loose badly.  If you believe in the above statement, you'd have to simply shrug your shoulders and move on, as the majority has decided.

Quoted:
Well here in Illinois, Mayor Daley and Gov. Rod Blablowmebitch, should be happy,  I have heard they are looking forward to fvcking us gun owners in the @ss for quite sometime.   Doubt we will get a reach around on that deal....

Quoted:

That is mathematically true, as this behavior is indeed far removed from the "average".  The assignment of morality is all relative.  I worked with a guy who thought men wearing shorts was deviant behavior.  

The question is whether or not one has the right to be consentually deviant.  You must be carefull with how you answer this question, as something you do on a regular basis, is likely considered deviant by someone somewhere.  

Guys, this smacks of selective outrage.  I wonder if the same ones who went ape over the home schooling couple in MA being forced to have their children tested, are the same ones supporting this law being on the books.

Amendment XIV

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; [red]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/red]

Quoted:

You missed the point there buddy.  The law was/is unjust, and went to the highest authority for discussion.  If people simply followed the rules presented to them without questioning, we'd be in big trouble, as every assinine law that came from any Fed/State/Local legislature, would have to be followed lock stock and barrel without discussion and/or challenge.  After all, it is the LAW, right.

The Constitution has a bill or rights to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the masses.  Always keep in mind, if the abolition and confiscation of "Assault Rifles" were put to a refferendum, we'd loose badly.  If you believe in the above statement, you'd have to simply shrug your shoulders and move on, as the majority has decided.

Quoted:
Dirty Sanchez here likes the decision.
[url]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030622/capt.1056243603.mexico_gay_pride_mo102.jpg[/url]

Quoted:
...."dirty sanchezs'"
....just to rub it in everybodys face

Quoted:
yeah, and if all our laws were enforced, wouldn't the ones that were wrong get removed due to public outrage etc.?

I'm not sure if everyone in the US (citizens) voted that we would lose on the assault weapon confiscation

Quoted:
Sodomy.....

I know you think it's very odd of me...
but I enjoy the act of sodomy

Quoted:
............was referencing the picture.

dont know what a dirty sanchez is, but more importantly i dont think i want to know either.

Quoted:
Guys, this smacks of selective outrage.  I wonder if the same ones who went ape over the home schooling couple in MA being forced to have their children tested, are the same ones supporting this law being on the books.

Quoted:


Oh, I have no doubt that God judges nations as well as individuals.

However, I would suggest that since the Good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, gave man free will, He may, in fact, consider it a GOOD thing that this nation allows INDIVIDUALS to exercise that free will so long as their exercise thereof does not adversely affect ANOTHER individual.

So, this nation has simply affirmed the order God put in place. Those who CHOOSE to pork/get porked up the wazoo will answer for it.

I, however, will not put myself in God's place and state that He will DEFINITELY hold us, as a nation, to account for this decision. That decision, of course, is entirely up to Him.

Again, I abhor homosexuality, especially in men. I find it revolting at best, but I tolerate it so long as it is not thrust into my face or those of my children. At that point, MY rights are being violated; MY children are being threatened, and all [red]HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE[/red]

Edited to add: Hielo is absolutely right. This decision does not change the FACT that homosexuality is STILL deviant behavior.

However, it is NOT the purpose of government to force an individual to live a virtuous life. It is the purpose of government to ensure that the rights of OTHERS are not infringed by the choice of an individual to do something that is non-virtuous.

That's a BIG difference, but one that can be easily blurred in the emotions of the issue (whatever the issue).

Quoted:



We can agree to disagree here.  One of our biggest political mistakes is to believe that our numbers are greater than they actually are.  Hell, we can't even get most hunters to agree that AK, AR, G3, or FAL ownership is a reasonable thing.

Quoted:

Nope, because there could be no outrage, because that would imply a soft spot for those evil people breaking those statutes.  

Quoted:
The act of consensual sodomy in Virginia is a class 6 felony (class 1 being the highest, i.e. capital murder).
I have only seen people charged with this in cases relating to prostitution.