U.S. Supreme Court to consider laws prohibiting homosexual acts - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:16 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,079
     
U.S. Supreme Court to consider laws prohibiting homosexual acts

Posted on Tue, Dec. 03, 2002

U.S. Supreme Court to consider laws prohibiting homosexual acts
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Monday that it would consider whether states can punish homosexuals for having sex, a case that will test the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Missouri, Kansas and 11 other states.

The justices will review the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

The court has struggled with how much protection the Constitution offers in the bedroom. The court ruled 5-4 in 1986 that consenting adults had no constitutional right to private homosexual sex, upholding laws that banned sodomy.

"Gay men and lesbians have been waiting for the opportunity to convince the court it should take a different view of their constitutional rights," Ruth E. Harlow, legal director of the New York-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Monday.

The court faces several questions in the latest case. Among them: Is it an unconstitutional invasion of privacy for couples to be prosecuted for what they do in their own homes? Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties?

Sodomy is defined as abnormal sex, in some states including anal and oral sex. Nine states ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. In addition, Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma punish only homosexual sodomy.

States argue that the laws, some dating back more than 100 years, are intended to preserve public morals. The laws are rarely enforced.

Kansas' criminal sodomy law is the subject of a case being reviewed by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Attorney Darrell S. Smith argued to the court in September that the law was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection for homosexuals.

Smith's client, Robert T. Rowe, was found guilty of the misdemeanor charge last year and sentenced to probation.

Rowe, 55, was charged in April 2001 for sexual activity that occurred in a Johnson County park. Because the activity occurred in a public place, his case does not involve the same invasion-of-privacy issue to be addressed in the Texas case.

A decision in Rowe's case is expected any time.

Scott Holste, a spokesman for the Missouri attorney general's office, said the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case was so new that no discussions had taken place as to whether Missouri should get involved. He said staff lawyers would have to determine whether the Texas statute was similar enough to Missouri's law to warrant Missouri getting involved.

In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas, lawyers for John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner said the men were bothering no one in 1998 when they were arrested in Lawrence's apartment, jailed overnight and later fined under Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law, which classifies anal or oral sex between two men or two women as deviate sexual intercourse.

The men's lawyers said the convictions would prevent them from getting certain jobs and would in some states require them to register as sex offenders. They were arrested after police responded to a false report of an armed intruder in Lawrence's apartment. Police entered the unlocked apartment and found the men having sex.

Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges.

"The idea that a state may enter into American bedrooms and closely inspect the most intimate and private physical interactions...is a stark affront to fundamental liberty that the court should end," said Harlow, one of the men's lawyers.

William Delmore III, an assistant district attorney in Texas, said people who did not like the law should take it up with the Texas Legislature, not the courts.

He said homosexual sodomy had been considered criminal behavior for centuries. The conduct "could not conceivably have achieved the status of a fundamental right in the brief period of 16 years" since the Supreme Court last reviewed it, Delmore wrote in the state's court papers.

In the last decade, state courts have blocked sodomy laws in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana and Tennessee. A Louisiana appeals court recently upheld that state's 197-year-old law banning all oral and anal sex.

In a brief supporting Texas, the California-based Pro Family Law Center said states should have the leeway to protect the public from the spread of diseases like AIDS.

Civil rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, urged the court to intervene, saying the laws were responsible for "stigmatizing gays and lesbians as outlaws" and contributed "to an atmosphere of hatred and violence" against gays.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court:

• Agreed to decide whether Michigan prison officials can ban visits by some child relatives and former prisoners and prevent some inmates from receiving anyone other than lawyers and clergy.

• Was asked by the Bush administration to limit lawsuits filed by American Indian tribes contending that the Interior Department failed to protect tribal resources.

• Said it would consider whether California prosecutors can get around time limits on child molestation cases, agreeing to hear an appeal from a grandfather charged with sexually abusing two family members decades earlier.

• Ended an effort to block specialty car-license plates in Louisiana with the slogan "Choose Life.'

• Rejected an appeal from a Mississippi death-row inmate whose lawyers wanted the court to decide whether it is unconstitutional for states to execute juvenile defendants. The inmate was 17 in 1989 when he killed a convenience store clerk in a robbery.

• Refused to stop a lawsuit that accused FBI officials of punishing an investigator in another agency for criticizing the Clinton administration's national security policy.
CHOCO is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:26 PM
The hottest straight, goth rocker on the board
Admin Emeritus
 
The Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 33,691
                     
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to consider laws prohibiting homosexual acts

Quote:
Originally posted by CHOCO
Posted on Tue, Dec. 03, 2002

States argue that the laws, some dating back more than 100 years, are intended to preserve public morals. The laws are rarely enforced.
This is such a laughable excuse

If only I was sure that my head on the door was a dream
The Crow is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,302
                     
Do you think anyone on the Supreme Court "bats for the team"?

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:33 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,049
                     
Have you seen them? They can bat for someone else's team, thank you very much!

That the laws may be "rarely enforced" is little comfort to those who do get prosecuted. Furthermore, the very existance of such laws is often used against gays and lesbians in other contexts - ie, parents being denied custody of their children because they "commit felonies" even if they haven't be prosecuted.

No government has any business deciding what consenting adults can and can't do in private.

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
--Robert Heinlein
griffin is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,302
                     
That one man from the Northeast is ok looking.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:39 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,049
                     
(Hey, whatever rolls your socks down.)


further reading, if you're interested-

http://www.sodomylaws.org/effects.htm

In the well-publicized 1995 Virginia case, Bottoms v. Bottoms, Sharon Bottoms lost custody of her son Tyler to her own mother, Pamela Kay Bottoms. Even though Tyler’s father had no objections to having Sharon raise their son, Pamela Bottoms successfully invoked the sodomy laws of Virginia to prevent Sharon Bottoms from raising her own son. Pamela Bottoms cited the Virginia sodomy law to identify Sharon Bottoms as a habitual felon under the Virginia sodomy law, using the classification of Sharon Bottoms as a criminal to further object to the imagined harm that might be done to the boy as a result of his being raised by a lesbian. The child was placed in Pamela Bottoms’ custody.

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
--Robert Heinlein
griffin is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:44 PM
The hottest straight, goth rocker on the board
Admin Emeritus
 
The Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 33,691
                     
Thanks, griffin, I didn't know about that. That's an outrage...

If only I was sure that my head on the door was a dream
The Crow is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,843
                     
I'm not sure whether to laugh at the sheer ludicrousness of it all or not. That's unbelievable. Really... it'd be self-parody if it wasn't serious. No, it's self-parody anyway.

The Bottoms case:

1 - call me naive, but I'm not sure if I can really see how lesbians can commit sodomy.

2 - Bottoms v Bottoms. Well, I'm laughing.
sartrista7 is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:59 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,049
                     
I'd laugh too if it hadn't been for the result.

The simple answer to 1 is that oral sex is considered sodomy under these statutes - in fact, in some cases any sexual contact between memebers of the same sex has been labled "sodomy."

Beyond that I will only say that we lesbians can be a resourceful bunch.

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
--Robert Heinlein
griffin is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 05:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,843
                     
Wow. Lesson 1 in how to rewrite the English language. Someone needs to show them a dictionary. And I'm well aware that you lesbians can be resourceful and, after some thought, I've actually worked out how you could be sodomites. Lovely!

The result is a disgrace. And it was only seven years ago! Christ.
sartrista7 is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 06:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Croatia
Posts: 941
                     
What I cannot comprehend is how those laws could have stood till present day! I just cannot comprehend.

Croatia, my home country, is something like 98% catholic, so you can imagine the public oppinion on homosexualism (a lot better with my generation, though), and yet there's absolutely no mention of any such stupidity in our laws and constitution. There is no pro-gay laws yet (about to change, perhaps), but something like this is beyond stupid.
Master Lu is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 06:28 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,079
     
Fact is, the current Supreme Court consist of a majority of conservatives, and it won't surprise me that the court will uphold the state laws concerning homosexual acts. It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court doesn't change with the times and get rid of the old and archaic laws that exist from another place and time.

We'll just have to wait for a liberal president to be elected.
CHOCO is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 06:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,302
                     
I like the ones that ban it for everyone. If you are gay, no sex. If you are straight, only one kind. Period. End of story. Are these laws something the U.S. got from old British law or customs? Many laws are.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 07:21 PM
Senior Member
 
G-Ha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 1,593
                     
At one point, I think just about every state in the union had anti-sodomy laws. As others have pointed out, sodomy referred to any sexual act that didn't lead directly to procreation...in other words, any sex act other than vaginal intercourse was illegal. Of course, heterosexuals were rarely, if ever, prosecuted based on these laws.

Clearly these laws are used to target homosexuals, but one might wonder how these laws are even enforced. Does anyone find it suspicious that the police responded to a "false" burglary alarm in the present case? This tells me that John and Tyron have a neighbor that doesn't like "homos" and no doubt gave a tip to police or called in the false alarm. This is typically how these laws have been enforced in the past. Either that, or when a vengeful wife finds hubby with the gardener bent over the kitchen table, and then she tips off the police.

Many states have done away with the sodomy laws entirely, but as the article notes, some still hold on for dear life.
G-Ha is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old Dec 3rd, 2002, 07:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,302
                     
I think straight people get away with it because when a cop barges into their bedroom, the guy can just claim his face was between the woman's legs because she thought she had a skin problem and he was double checking because she cannot see that well down there. Gay men and lesbians when they are caught in bed naked, it is harder to come up with something plausible.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome