U.S. Supreme Court overturns Texas sodomy law

[Pookie]

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Texas sodomy law that prohibited consensual sex by same-sex partners.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

 

[Queersetti]

From now on July 26 is a holiday!

From CNN:




Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 10:18 AM EDT (1418 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas law that criminalizes homosexual sodomy, a ruling considered to be a major victory for gay rights in the United States.

The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees.

The case was seen as testing the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. The justices reviewed the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in a Houston-area apartment in 1998 by officers responding to a neighbor's false report of an armed intruder. That neighbor wrongly claimed a man was "going crazy" inside the residence. Police crashed into Lawrence's home and discovered Lawrence and Garner involved in a sexual act. They were arrested, jailed overnight and later fined $200.

"It was sort of like the Gestapo coming in," said Lawrence after a court appearance.

The men's lawyers had said that if the convictions were upheld, their clients would be prevented from obtaining from certain jobs and they would also be considered sex offenders in several states. The Texas law, they told the court, gives gay Americans second-class status as citizens.

"I feel like my civil rights were being violated," said Garner, "and I don't think I was doing anything wrong."

Lawrence and Garner were charged under Texas' "homosexual conduct" law, which criminalizes "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Although only 13 states now criminalize consensual sodomy, a Texas state appeals court found the law "advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public morals."


Landscape has changed since 1986 ruling

The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue of was in 1986, when the court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law. Since then, much has changed in U.S. culture, say gay rights supporters, including changes in public attitudes and the fact that such laws are rarely enforced.

"The state should not have the power to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arrest them," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay-rights group representing the two Texas men.

"These laws are widely used to justify discrimination against gay people in everyday life; they're invoked in denying employment to gay people, in refusing custody or visitation for gay parents, and even in intimidating gay people out of exercising their First Amendment rights."

Lambda cited recent U.S. Census figures showing about 600,000 households with same-sex partners, 43,000 or so in Texas.

Texas prosecutors argued the government has the right to enforce public morality. Supporters of the Texas law say states have long regulated behavior deemed "immoral," including gambling and prostitution.

"The government has a legitimate interest in helping preserve not only public health, but public morals as well," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, which filed a legal brief backing Texas. "The mere fact that this behavior occurs in private doesn't mean the public doesn't have a stake in these behaviors."

The 1986 Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld a Georgia state law that effectively made homosexual sexual behavior a crime. In 1998, however, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned that state law.

The late Justice Lewis Powell, the deciding vote in the 5-4 Bowers decision, later said he probably made a mistake with his decision on that case.


State laws have existed for more than a century

State sodomy laws have been on the books for a century or more, and generally define the act sodomy as "abnormal" sex, including oral and anal sex. Such laws were on the books of every state as recently as 1960.

Legal experts on both sides of the issue acknowledge such laws are rarely enforced, but can serve to underpin a basic message of morality in society that courts and government have supported.

The 1986 Bowers case focused on the right to privacy. By the time of Bowers, only half the states carried criminal sodomy laws, and now only a fourth do.

In a 1996 decision, Romer v. Evans, the court voted 6-3 to overturn a Colorado amendment that barred local governments from enacting ordinances to protect gays.

The case has entered the national political debate, stirred by recent comments from Sen. Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Republican told The Associated Press in May, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything."

Santorum defended his remarks but some fellow Republicans distanced themselves from them.

The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102)

 

[Pookie]

You beat me to it Q.

 

[Mischka]

Edit: everyone beat me to it. I've been refreshing the Supreme Court's website, but it's not up there yet.

I did not see this coming. Of course, I didn't see the 5-4 Michigan decision either. The Court's getting downright civil in its old age.

 

[oh21]

Yeah I am anxiously waitng to read the opinion, it'll be interesting to see what the justices actually said.

 

[Pookie]

The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to cover similar laws in 12 other states and reverses a 1986 high court ruling upholding sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that homosexuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote, according to a report from The Associated Press.

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.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three, according to the AP. 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."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

 

[Queersetti]

You beat me to it Q.

I've been refreshing the news sites all morning waiting for it.

 

[Pookie]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/law/0306/sodomy.laws/popup.us.sodomy.laws.map.gif

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Yay!

Seriously it's about fucking time...Canada is legalizing gay marriage and in some states we can't have anal sex or buy sex toys. For such a "forward thinking" nation, I'm often disgusted by how conservative we are about matters concerning sex.

Today, legal gay sex, tomorrow gay marriage.

Of course, it was irritated by the fact that CNN & co were only getting soundbites from people like the head of the clergy organization who was blithering on about morality. Roll of eyes.

But seriously, let's enjoy this.

 

[Pookie]

More info ...

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

 

[Pookie]

The Supreme Court's Ruling ...

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Press Release

Striking Down Texas Law Against Same-Sex “Sodomy,” Supreme Court Rights Egregious Wrong of 17 Years, Signaling New Era for Gay Rights

June 26, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WASHINGTON – In an historic decision with wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a Texas law that makes some kinds of sexual intimacy a crime, but only for gay people. The decision overrules the court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was widely condemned for treating gay people as second-class citizens. It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a major milestone in the fight for constitutional rights.

“This decision will affect virtually every important legal and social question involving lesbians and gay men,” said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “For years, whenever we have sought equality, we’ve been answered both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion with the claim that we are not entitled to equality because our love makes us criminals. That argument – which has been a serious block to progress -- is now a dead letter.” Esseks added, “from now on, cases and political debates about employment, custody and the treatment of same-sex couples should be about merit, not about who you love.”

In sweeping language, the Court said the Constitution protects the right of gay people to form intimate relationships and “retain their dignity as free persons.” Gay people, the Court said, have the same right to “define one’s concept of existence, of meaning, or the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” that heterosexuals do. The Bowers decision, the Court said, “demeans the lives of homosexual persons.”

Since 1986, lower courts have relied on Bowers v. Hardwick to take away or limit custody to gay parents and to uphold firing or refusing to hire gay people. Bowers has frequently been invoked in legislative debates as a reason not to protect gay people from discrimination.

“With this decision, the Court has finally recognized that we are part of the American family. Now it’s time for the rest of society to do the same,” Esseks said. “Our civil rights laws need to make the workplace fair, our schools safe, and to give basic respect to the relationships at the core of our lives--with our partners and our children. By acknowledging that we are not criminals, this decision will make it far easier for us to get society to change.”

In an 18-page opinion, the Court held that the Texas law violates the fundamental right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution. The decision means that similar laws against sexual intimacy in the 12 other states that have them are also invalid. These include laws in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma that apply only to gay people as well as laws in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Utah, which make “sodomy” a crime for all people.

“Justice Brandeis said over 75 years ago that the ‘right to be let alone’ is the right most valued by civilized people, and most Americans agree,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “This decision is all the more important because it comes at a time when the right to privacy is under one of the greatest assaults it has ever faced.”

The Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick in unusually strong terms. “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today,” the Court said. Bowers was an ACLU challenge to Georgia’s “sodomy” law, which applied to all couples. In Bowers, the Court held that the right to privacy did not invalidate Georgia’s sodomy law.

Although Georgia’s sodomy law applied to straight and gay couples, explained Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU, “the Court treated it as a case about the constitutionality of laws making same-sex intimacy a crime.” The lower courts, Shapiro said, “understood Bowers to permit discrimination against gay people in criminal laws and in many other areas as well. This decision establishes that the state has no place in anybody’s bedroom, straight or gay.”

It is not immediately clear what effect the Court’s decision will have on Matthew Limon, whose case is still pending before the Supreme Court. Limon, who is represented by the ACLU, was convicted of having consensual oral sex with another male when they were both teenagers. Had the other teenager been a girl, Limon would be serving no more than a 15-month sentence. Because the other teenager was boy, Kansas law required that Limon be sentenced to 17 years in Kansas state prison. Limon’s case is based not on the right to privacy, but on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. However, the Kansas Courts relied on Bowers in rejecting Limon’s appeal. The Supreme Court could send his case back to the Kansas courts, which should free him.

The ACLU has developed a public education campaign designed to help LGBT people take advantage of this historic decision to push for equality. To support the campaign, the ACLU has launched a new website, www.aclu.org/getequal, that provides tools for fighting anti-gay discrimination, making schools safer for LGBT youth and getting equality for LGBT relationships.

The petitioners in Lawrence, two Texas men who were arrested after police broke into their home to investigate an anonymous tip that turned out to be false, were represented by Lambda Legal.

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13011&c=41

 

[PinkOrchid]

 

[Lust Engine]

It's about time. I'm still amazed that there are some states in this day & age where those laws are on the books.

 

[WriterDom]

for the legal minds

will this ruling will extend constitutional protection to all consensual adult sexual relations of a non-conventional nature, including S&M and kink?

 

[Queersetti]

Re: for the legal minds

will this ruling will extend constitutional protection to all consensual adult sexual relations of a non-conventional nature, including S&M and kink?

That's a good question.

I'm no lawyer but it sure seems to me that "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention" would apply to S&M as well.

 

[ithaqua]

Great!

So, am I legal?

 

[PinkOrchid]

 

[Lust Engine]

So who's going to come over and help me celebrate and try out some of these new rights?????

Now how can I possibly turn down an offer like that to celebrate a Constitutional event like that???

 

[Pookie]

A followup on the Limon case that I just caught ...

Supreme Court Intervenes on Behalf of Kansas Youth Serving 17-Year Prison Sentence Because He’s Gay

June 27, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered the case of a young gay man back to a Kansas appeals court for further consideration in light of yesterday’s historic ruling on sexual intimacy. The American Civil Liberties Union represents Matthew Limon in this appeal.

Friday morning’s Court decision vacated Limon’s sentence and instructed the Kansas Court of Appeals to review his case. By doing so, the Court further affirmed yesterday’s mandate that states can no longer penalize the sexual conduct of gay people differently. Limon is serving 16 years more in prison than he would if he were heterosexual because Kansas’ so-called "Romeo and Juliet Law" (which makes sexual relations with a minor a lesser crime if both people are teens) only applies to opposite-sex relations.

"The ‘Romeo and Juliet’ law, similar to the Texas law that was struck down yesterday, treats lesbian and gay people much more harshly than it does straight people who engage in the same behavior, and states can no longer get away with that kind of unequal treatment," said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "We hope that this is the first of many wrongs that yesterday’s ruling will correct."

In addition to the Kansas law, sexual conduct laws that treat young gay people differently from heterosexuals remain on the books in Texas, Alabama, California, Virginia, and Georgia, Esseks said. Yesterday’s Lawrence v. Texas decision calls all such laws into question.

The ACLU has developed "Get Busy, Get Equal," a public education campaign designed to help lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people take advantage of yesterday’s historic decision to push for equality. To support the campaign, the ACLU has launched a new website, www.aclu.org/getequal that provides tools for fighting anti-gay discrimination, making schools safer for LGBT youth and getting equality for LGBT relationships.

Limon is appealing a 17-year prison sentence he received because shortly after he turned 18 he performed consensual oral sex on a nearly-15-year-old male at a residential school for developmentally disabled youth where they both lived in Miami County, Kansas. If he had instead performed oral sex on a female of the same age, he would have received 12 months in jail under the "Romeo and Juliet Law," which applies only to heterosexuals.

"Until yesterday, Matthew Limon was facing the likelihood of being in prison until he was 36 years old, while he would have been released before turning 20 if he were heterosexual," said Esseks. "This is a great first step toward correcting the massive injustice that has been done to Matthew Limon."

Under the Kansas law, consensual oral sex between two teens is a lesser crime if the younger teenager is 14 to 16 years old, if the older teenager is under 19, if the age difference is less than four years, if there are no third parties involved, and if the two teenagers "are members of the opposite sex."

The ACLU’s petition for Supreme Court review of the Limon case is online at http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=10858&c=41

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13033&c=41

 

[sirhugs]

Re: Re: for the legal minds

That's a good question.

I'm no lawyer but it sure seems to me that "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention" would apply to S&M as well.

do any states have laws banning kink or BDSM? My recollection is that the " Blue Laws" feature the archaic " sins"....beastiality, sodomy, adultery...

I bet they forgot leather and chains