Gay rights appeal against Texas in US Supreme Court

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/26/scotus.sodomy.ap/index.html

which way will it go? from the comments of a few judges, what I thought would be an open and shut case of basic human rights may go the way of the conservatives.



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court should reverse course and strike down a ban on homosexual sex as outdated, discriminatory and harmful, a lawyer for two men arrested in their bedroom argued Wednesday.

The court appeared deeply divided over a Texas law that makes it a crime for gay couples to engage in sex acts that are legal for heterosexual couples. The court was widely criticized for a ruling 17 years ago that upheld a similar sodomy ban.

States should not be able to single out one group and make their conduct illegal solely because the state dislikes that conduct, lawyer Paul Smith argued for the Texas men.

"There is a long history of the state making moral judgments," retorted Justice Antonin Scalia. "You can make it sound very puritanical," but the state may have good reasons, Scalia added.

"Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. That's why people regulate," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist added dryly.

[Cleopatra]

OMG. I can't believe that... :(

[iain]

"Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. That's why people regulate," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist added dryly. And there was me thinking that most laws are based on preventing harm to people or property. Now I understand - we legislate against murder because we disaprove of it; that someone happens to get killed is a minor side effect.

[Cleopatra]

I am curious of the outcome because the state of Texas doesn't have a case.

Did you notice that?:

Quoting the article provided by Unique.

The state has an interest in protecting marriage and family and promoting the birth of children, Rosenthal replied.

Sexual practices that are banned for homosexuals are legal for heterosexual couples.

Well, I hope that they will explain to court how anal or oral sex between heterosexual couples promote the birth of children...

edited to add Iain, I am afraid that I will dissapoint you but legislation is exactly this; What a group of people approves or dissaproves :)

[OdderMensch]

Because the ban on homosexual actives would lead to more prospers heterosexual ones. It's attractive thinking. But it ani't got no place in my Constitution! The law is unjust, and it's that simple. What happens in peoples bedrooms, between consenting adults is no business of any governmental organization.

[Smalso]

A large crowd stood in line outside the court before the oral arguments in hopes of getting a scarce seat for one of the court's biggest cases this year. A knot of protesters stood apart, holding signs that read "AIDS is God's revenge," "God sent the sniper" and other messages.

All too often these are the kinds of people who make our laws.

I live in a state (North Carolina) in which it is illegal for a man and his wife to participate in oral sex with each other. Ignorance, bigotry and fanaticism exist because they feed upon themselves.

[MRC_Hans]

Americans are nuts :rolleyes: (change that to some Americans)

But it is a question of level, I guess: In my neck of the woods, the great debate is as to whether a registered homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt.

Hans

[Scared Chicken]

Oh my God, I had no idea there where laws against that!
Time to send in a liberation army to liberate these supressed homosexuals!

[Scared Chicken]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Because the ban on homosexual actives would lead to more prospers heterosexual ones.

You don't really believe that, do you ? As if any law would change people's sexual orientation. Assuming you are hetero, do you think a law against heterosexual activities would turn you into a homo ? I thought not.

Sorry, but having a law that allows jailing adults for exercising their (homo)sexual preferences... to put it mildly, is in conflict with the US freedom and liberty you keep hearing everywhere. God help me if they start exporting this "freedom". Where I live, homo's even have the right to marry, and rightfully so. They are treated 100% equally to hetersexual couples, with the exception of child adoption.

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

Hey, "Land of the Free"....you surely do need the civilised world to walk in there and liberate you!

When I think that we're a small 3rd world country and the question is not the legality of homosexual practices, but protecting said practitioners from discrimination-well, prepare for a regime change.

[Supercharts]

The decision by SCOTUS will be very significant in that the decision may turn on States Rights. If the Federal Government does not have a law against it [I don't know...help me out here] then anything not protected by the Constitution or the body of Federal laws can be left up to the States. OTOH Civil Rights may obviate any such decision by the States. It's hard for me to think Mason and Jefferson cared about this one way or the other. But I could be wrong.
Basically I cannot understand how the Courts can regulate a citizens hormones as long as consent is given.

[Saturn]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/26/scotus.sodomy.ap/index.html
which way will it go? from the comments of a few judges, what I thought would be an open and shut case of basic human rights may go the way of the conservatives.


The quotes you mentioned are not unexpected to people who follow the Supreme Court. It's clear that Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas will vote to uphold the Texas law, whereas Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer will vote to overturn it. That leaves Kennedy and O'Connor as swing votes. I'm slightly more inclined to believe that they will vote to overturn the Texas law. That's mostly because the court has lately been interceding to settle controversial political issues - witness Bush v. Gore, and the recent decision to ban executions of the mentally retarded.