Poll: Anti sodomy ruling

Started by Amber, Jul 05, 2003, 08:55 AM

previous topic - next topic

What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas "anti sodomy" case?

The states had no right to regulate sodomy.
1 (20%)
That person's have a right to privacy, i.e. can't get arrested from their own home.
4 (80%)
That homosexuals have a right to do whatever they want on a federal level, and gay marriage is next.
0 (0%)
That making homosexual sodomy acts only was unconstitutional and heteroseuxal acts of sodomy must be included also, if at all.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: Jul 05, 2003, 08:55 AM

Go Down

Amber

he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

Amber

he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

Amber

he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

mr niceguy

Not quite. I picked the first of your poorly worded choices, because it was the closest. Of course, the Supreme Court did not overturn ALL states' anti-sodomy laws, just the Texas law. But it paves the way for the overturning of anti-sodomy laws --- those applying to everyone AND those applying just to homosexuals --- in other states.

You must have missed the last 4 paragraphs of Kennedy's opinion, in which he invoked Stevens' dissenting opinion in the Bowers case, where Stevens wrote, "Individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons." Kennedy wrote, "Justice Stevens' analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here." In other words, it's about the sodomy, not the sexual orientation. Four other justices sided with Kennedy for the reason stated, constituting a majority opinion. The sixth justice, O'Connor, concurred with the opinion but for the reason you stated: the Texas law singles out homosexuals. Of course, the other three --- Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist --- dissented, because they're bigots. Scalia's line "I have nothing against homosexuals" was predictable and laughable.

radicalangel

Quote
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.

    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 easily be 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. 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 petitioners 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. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual


Privacy IS the issue here, and as you can see, Bowers was overturned.  The only justice applying the Equal Protection argument was Sandra Day O' Connor.
url=http://gayrebel83.blogspot.com]My Blog[/url]

mr niceguy

Quote from: "radicalangel"
Quote
Privacy IS the issue here, and as you can see, Bowers was overturned.  
Yes, privacy as it relates to intimate sexual practices between consenting adults, including what is defined as "sodomy".

Spot on about O'Connor's separate concurring opinion.

Maybe Amber could go to law school to learn a thing or two about the world, in the unlikely event that they admit her.

Amber

An email exchange between me and the guy,

Me:

I just got done reading the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy.  In it, he does conclude that the State laws about homosexuality could be shot down.  He spends a significant amount of time attacking Bowers, that their reasoning was flawed.  In Bowers, they basically said that there is a rich history of Western laws which prohibited homosexual acts.  But Kennedy says that laws targetted solely at private, consenting acts among homosexuals did not happen until post 1950s.  Instead, the laws were targetted against all non-procreative acts, heterosexual or homosexual, and that only cases in which abuse or sex with a minor occured, were the sodomy laws used.  He ends by saying Bowers was overruled, which was the precedent before this case, and the reason why the Texas court upheld the conviction.  This is what Justice Kennedy concluded, emphasis mine

"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 easily be 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. 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 petitioners 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. [/i]Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "

I haven't got to Justice O'Connor's statement yet, but this was the majority opinion.  Sure, the swing vote matters, but shouldn't the majority opinion take precedence? How can you say that the Court didn't strike down sodomy laws?

Him:

Amber thanks for your thoughful post.
It is true that Justice Kennedy wrote the decision and O'Connor wrote a "concurring" opinon.
Concurring opinions are typically written when two or more Justices reach the same conclusion for different reasons and/or two Justices disagree about the broadness of the precedent ths case should set.  In this case, Kennedy went so far as to claim the court overturned an earlier case, Bowers v. Hardwick ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=478&invol=186 ),  O'Connors' opinoon claims that the current ruling does not overturn Bowers.

The first words of Kennedy's instructions (the writ of certori to the court of appeals) are:
Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3-18.  (emphasis obviously mine).  Thus even Kennedy's certori makes it clear that this ruling does not declare all sodomy laws unconstituional, but insead applies only to those which deal differently with same-sex and opposite-sex sodomy.

As for the opinon section, right from the outset Kennedy frames the case this way:
"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct."  (emphasis obviously mine again).  For a secoind time Justice Kennedy makes it claer that this case pertains only to a law which treats people differently based on the gender or the gender of their lover.

Still, it is easy to infer from the rest of Kennedy's opinion that he would willing declare all private acts "protected."

Justice O'Connor, the deciding vote apparently took issue with something in Kennedy's opinion and chose to concur with the result but write here own.

The second sentence of  O'Connor's opninion reads as follows:
" . . . I agree with the Court that Texas' statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional."

I could go on, but the point is both majority opinons are replete with references to the fact that the Texas sodomy law treated same-sex and oppsite sex partners differently.


Me:

So what are States going to do, with Kennedy and O'Connor contradicting themselves over if this case overturns Bowers or not?  What will lower courts have to go by?  They are going to have to go with the majority opinion.  The fact is -- Lawrence over-ruled Bowers.  

Sure, Kennedy makes reference to the fact that the Texas law applied only to homosexuals, while the Georgia anti sodomy law (in Bowers), held for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.  But that's all it was - a fact.  Kennedy did not say that he opposed the law just because it referred only to same sex sodomy.  He only mentioned that that was what the court was reviewing - and it was. Only O'Connor used the discrimination argument, out of all the justices.  

>As for the opinon section, right from the outset Kennedy frames the case >this way: >"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making >it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate >sexual conduct." (emphasis obviously mine again). For a secoind time >Justice Kennedy makes it claer that this case pertains only to a law >which treats people differently based on the gender or the gender of >their lover.



Again, he is referring to the facts of the case - what it was they were evaluating.  He makes no judgment calls here.  That *is* what they were looking at --  Should gay sex be illegal?  That was the Texas law, and that is what they were looking at.  I'm not seeing a "homosexual vs. heterosexual discrimination" argument here.  

Kennedy, by the way, was appointed by Ronald Reagen.  Four out of the six judges who approved of Lawrence were appointed by Republicans.  Three of them used privacy reasons, only one - O'Connor (first female appoint by Reagen), used the discrimination argument.

I'm actually glad it was more of a privacy argument than a discrimination argument.  If it's a private argument, then it sticks SOLELY to whether or not people can engage in sexual acts.  Who cares?  You'd have to be of a totalitarian mentality (like Covenor) to put people in jail for having anal sex.  As Kennedy pointed out, sodomy laws had not, traditionally, been used to put private consenting adults behding bars.  It was only used in cases of abuse or pedophilia.  (I never really thought they had anything to bitch about, until this random case of cops entering a man's house and finding 2 men engaged in sodomy).

What I'm worried about is gay marriage.  Sure, 6 out of 10 Americans don't support sodomy laws (according to Newsweek), but 6 out of 10 Americans don't support gay marriage (if the California case is of any barometer).  A true tribute to the common sense of Americans.  Anyway, if there was a discrimination argument ... then this would pave the way for gay marriage[/i].  If you can't "discriminate" between hetersosexual and homosexual acts in the eyes of the law, then you can't discriminate between them when they go to obtain a marriage license.  

This (gay marriage) is next on their radar screen, and I hope the moral leadership of this country steps up to stop it.  God, I do NOT want us to turn into Europe!

--------------

This will teach me to take other people's word for it.  :roll:
he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

mr niceguy

LOL.
Four justices not including O'Connor agreed with Kennedy.
4 + 1 = 5.
There are 9 Supreme Court justices.
9 - 5 = 4.
5 > 4.
Thus O'Connor was not the deciding vote. Your friend was mistaken about that.
The 5 constituting the majority overturned the Bowers decision in addition to the Texas law, thereby proving that it was about the government having no legitimate reason to regulate private consensual sex acts between adults, NOT about opposing discrimination based on orientation.

Sodomy laws of other states will have to be brought individually to court before they can be struck down. This Texas case will then serve as a precedent in the arguments, thus making it easier to strike down those laws.

Laws having to do with child-rape and other abuses are on the books separately, so sodomy laws are not needed to cover those crimes.

I hope this clears up all your confusion.

Amber

he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

mr niceguy

Quote from: "Amber"
Ok, the court shot down SODOMY LAWS.  The law specifically refers to anal sex.  Of all relationships, the male-male, the female-male, or the female-female ... the female-female one does NOT have to worry about going to jail for "lov[e]"ing each other.  :roll:
Most if not all sodomy laws, including the Texas law, also refer to oral sex in addition to anal --- i.e., any orifice-to-genital contact other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Thus, two women can engage in "sodomy".

Quote
God, I spent the weekend watching a 7 yr old.  I can't imaging sitting her down and explaining to her the wonders of lesbian love.  These people are sick.
It's an oversimplified explanation of the Supreme Court decision, but have you ever tried to explain case-law to a 7 yr old? Hell, you're a college graduate, and it was like pulling teeth trying to explain it to you.

radicalangel

Then the Newsweek article was wrong.  O'Connor could have voted with Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, but the outcome would have been a majority of five, and therefore the same.

Sodomy laws are not limited to anal sex.  They also cover oral sex.  In many states, such as my own (Mississippi), they apply regardless of the sex of the participants.  

Quote
God, I spent the weekend watching a 7 yr old. I can't imaging sitting her down and explaining to her the wonders of lesbian love.
I can.  "Honey, let me explain something to you.  You know how your mommy and daddy love each other.  Well, sometimes two women or two men love each other just like that."  Simple enough.
url=http://gayrebel83.blogspot.com]My Blog[/url]

mr niceguy

Quote from: "radicalangel"
Simple enough.
You'd think we were talking about rocket science or brain surgery here!

dr e

Quote
I can. "Honey, let me explain something to you. You know how your mommy and daddy love each other. Well, sometimes two women or two men love each other just like that." Simple enough.


Yes, quite agree.  It is fine for two men or two women to love each other and to choose a long-term relationship.  It's not a marriage though.  Marriage in my old-fashioned book is between a man and a woman.  That is surely what my dictionary says.  To try to call a different relationship by it's name is misleading and basically incorrect.  Call it gay marriage if you want, give it the same rights as a married couple if you wish, just don't call it something that it is not.  

Maybe it's like deciding to call peaches apples.  Oh yeah, from this day forward we will be calling peaches by the name of apples.  Simply doesn't make sense.  Call it what it is.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Amber

he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

URnotmeRU

Stick around Mr. NiceGuy, when Amber says she's all done talking to you, it's only the beginning. Just sit back and watch how much she means it. :lol:
nd the time will come when you'll see we're all one and life flows on, within you and without you. - George Harrison

Go Up