Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas sodomy law

[Sergeant Bob]

Not trying to start a firestorm, I think this is important and hope it can be discussed calmly and rationally.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seen as creation of right to 'gay' sex, Scalia: Justices entered 'culture war'


In a landmark decision regarded by many as establishment of a constitutional right to "gay" sex, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' ban on same-sex sodomy.

Citing the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, the high court said in its 6-3 ruling that states cannot punish homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.


Tyron Garner and John Lawrence were arrested for violating Texas sodomy law

Critics of the decision differ on the legitimacy of the Texas sodomy law, but they agree the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.

"There is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of nearly 70 Texas legislators. "Read the Constitution as many times as you'd like. It's not there."

The ruling reverses a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, which said individuals have no federal constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts. Until the 1960s, every state prohibited sodomy, but Texas was one of just 13 states in which a law exists and one of just four that banned same-sex sodomy only. The rarely enforced laws carry penalties ranging from fines to 10 years in prison.

The rest of the story at WND

In a landmark decision regarded by many as establishment of a constitutional right to "gay" sex, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' ban on same-sex sodomy.

I don't see it as a Constitutional right to gay sex, but a Constitutional right not to have the government looking in your bedroom, a right to privacy.

"There is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of nearly 70 Texas legislators. "Read the Constitution as many times as you'd like. It's not there."

There is no Constitiutional right to eat Twinkies either then, cause it's not specifically listed

Until the 1960s, every state prohibited sodomy, but Texas was one of just 13 states in which a law exists and one of just four that banned same-sex sodomy only.

There are still nine states which prohibit anyone (including a man and wife ) from engaging in "sodomy". They are: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
So if your neighbor takes a disliking to you and calls the police to report a disturbance in your house, the cops barge in and discover you with your wife, then decide they just (as happened in the case cited)have to charge you with something! You could end up with fines and jail time.

The rarely enforced laws carry penalties ranging from fines to 10 years in prison.

Big Brother has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

 

[Graystar]

It's the scariest thing when judges say "there is no constitutional right...." because such an attitude completely ignores the 9th amendment.

There's also a principle of American life that laws should only be passed to protect rights, and only when there is a clear case of rights needing protection. We should *never* legislate just because it sounds like a good idea.

 

[rock jock]

Its equally scary when the feds start getting involved in things clearly outside their authority by using the doctrine of the "living Constitution". Maybe they need to read over the 10th Amendment again. At the same time, its funny how some folks relish federal involvement on an issue like this and then complain later when they do the same thing with the War on Drugs.

 

[Jeeper]

I agree with the ruling to an extent because the laws against gay sodomy are based upon religion. I am aginst any law that is completely based upon religion. Some can argue morals but the religious factions are the ones at play. The right to privacy in this way has never really been given to this extent. Before this ruling it was legal for the state to legislate against oral sex (Actually considered sodomy under the texas law). This applied to both hetero and homosexual. IT seems rather ridiculous why the state should be able to tell a married couple that they cant have oral sex. Once you say that the married couple can do it then every one else is allowed equal protection. I have been following this case because it is rather interesting. This type of decidion was very forseeable.

 

[Chris Rhines]

No indeed, there is no Constitutional right to gay sex, straight sex, plain sex, kinky sex, or any other kind of sex. There is, however, a Constitutional (and beyond) right to determine the use of one's own body. Any law that attempts to criminalize such behaivor is contrary to both the Constitution and to the idea of liberty in general, and should be considered null and void on its face.

Good decision (for once) by the nine black-dress-wearers.

- Chris

 

[rock jock]

There is, however, a Constitutional (and beyond) right to determine the use of one's own body.

Nope, not found in the BoR. Your "contrary to both the Constitution and to the idea of liberty in general" is the same ruse the antis use to invalidate the 2A, yanno, the "living Constitution" and all that. One could easily make the statement that owning assault weapons is clearly against the idea of liberty, that drugs are a very real danger to our liberty and therefore both must be banned by the fed govt. Please don't ever cite the Constitution in support of your arguments again if you can't manage to be consistent.

 

[OF]

Are all your rights found in the BoR, rock? Not quite.

- Gabe

 

[Justin]

Rock Jock, for a guy with as many opinions as you've got, I sometimes wonder if you've ever even read the Bill of Rights.

Might want to check out Amendment number 9 there.

 

[rock jock]

Never said that. All I'm saying is that we either accept the Constitution as it is written, or open it up to interpretation. The sword cuts both ways. When you leave the interpretation of your extra-Constitutional rights in the hands of the Supreme Court, you are taking a mighty big risk. IMO, better to follow the 10th Amendment leave these decisions to the states.

 

[rock jock]

Justin,

Please cite in the writings of the FF where certain types of sexual behavior is deemed a "right" retained by the people? Also, you might want to read the 10th.

 

[dance varmint]

How about the constitutionality of banning consentual ritual sacrifice in the privacy of one's home?

 

[Graystar]

Never said that. All I'm saying is that we either accept the Constitution as it is written, or open it up to interpretation.

So when you say "as written", you mean *your* interpretation...right?

 

[Justin]

RockJock, you still don't get it.
I don't have to cite chapter and verse of the FF's to justify one's right to engage in a particular behavior* any more than I have to cite the writings of the FF's for justification to eat a Snickers bar.

I have indeed read the 10th amendment, and I fail to see how that gives the states the power to delegate who can engage in what behavior in their own bedroom.



*So long as it doesn't violate the NAP.

 

[buzz_knox]

I have indeed read the 10th amendment, and I fail to see how that gives the states the power to delegate who can engage in what behavior in their own bedroom.

Try the police power, which is reserved for the states. The federal gov't can only regulate criminal activity on its own property or through a tortured version of the Commerce Clause. However, the states retained the power to regulate criminal activity under the 10th Amendment.

Also, recall that not every behavior is permissible because it occurs in your own bedroom: child molestation, forcible rape, and child pornography are just a few of the activities which take place in bedrooms across the country and are properly regulated. Whether consentual homosexual activity should be regulated or not was implicitly intended to be left to the state populations acting by and through their legislature to determine.

 

[Cosmoline]

Those who think the BOR should be read only as written need to look at it again. Look at the first sentence in the first amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law..." Nothing about the States. So if we read it as written, you could be put in prison by Virginia for bad-mouthing the Gov.

 

[Jeeper]

Buzz,

You cant compare homosexual behavior to non-consentual behavior(rape, molestation etc). The state has as much power as doesnt infringe upon rights guaranteed by the fed. Under your thesis states could ban interracial marriages or at least interracial sex.

 

[buzz_knox]

You forgot the 14th Amendment, though, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

 

[buzz_knox]

Jeeper, agreed. But the point was that arguing whatever happens in one's bedroom is one's own business (the implicit statement to which I responded) is . . . less than accurate to be charitable.

 

[Justin]

Buzzknox- You did see that little asterisk next to the word 'behavior' in my post, yes?
It made reference to an endnote pointing out that one does not have the right to engage in behavior that violates the NAP or Non-Aggression Principle.

Since the behaviors you listed are all a violation of the NAP, it is therefore impossible to have a right to engage in such behavior.

I also think that the 10th amendment argument fails because if the states can regulate what sort of sexual behavior two consenting adults can engage in, then they can certainly regulate what sort of guns you and I choose to own.

 

[KC]

Go get (and READ) a copy of "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society" by Peter McWilliams. The local Mega bookstores have a copy or two in stock where I am, and Amazon has it.

KC

 

[Justin]

You forgot the 14th Amendment, though, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

You know, I think it'd be fantastically entertaining to be a fly on the wall of the congressional committee charged with drawing up a constitutional amendment delineating what sort of sexual activity is cool by Uncle Sugar and what is verboten.

 

[stevelyn]

The Constitutional issues has more to do with the Constitution restricting the powers of government and the fact the legislature(s) that enacted the stricken laws, over stepped their bounds and had no business enacting them in the first place. Government needs to stay out of peoples' bedrooms and reproductive systems.

 

[Cosmoline]

Go read the 14th, though. There's no clear indication that it does this. My point is simply that every amendment must be interpreted and re-interpreted in order to make the whole thing work.

The Texas sodomy decision may well have impact on us, BTW. There are a growing number of scholars who see protection of the RKBA as not just a matter of the Second Amendment, but as an aspect of the Right to Privacy. Just as cops can't snoop under our sheets, they can't snoop in our gun safes, either. If anything is the heart of the American home--it's the gun rack.

I know the Right to Privacy has some very questionable background, but frankly I don't care. Anything that limits the power of government is good.

 

[BigG]

If anything is the heart of the American home--it's the gun rack.

Hear, hear!

 

[themic]

How about the constitutionality of banning consentual ritual sacrifice in the privacy of one's home?

don't think it's a constitutional violation, but it is an unnecessary violation of liberty. if people want to kill themselves, or each other in a consentual way, or their grandma who just wants the pain to end, then by all means they should be able to. sure, case law would likely lead to some careful steps before doing such, something to the effect of consent forms and witnesses and standard practices, but nevertheless the right should be there.

in an ideal world, crimes require victims, and a consentual partner in any activity cannot be a victim.