26-06-2003 19:27									#1
	Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex! Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban


Jun 26, 10:19 AM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

	26-06-2003 19:29									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Mind if I join you, che?

	26-06-2003 19:33									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hallelujah. Reason prevails.

	26-06-2003 19:33									#4
	Tired of ads?

I thought by the thread title Diana Ross or Mary Wells had made some sort of statement! :O)

	26-06-2003 19:34									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This one was a more reasonable decision than what they handed down earlier in the week. Any idea on how the vote broke down?

	26-06-2003 19:36									#6
	Got spare money?

My guess is that the 3 dissenters were Renquist, Scalia and Thomas.

	26-06-2003 19:38									#7
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever I thought by the thread title Diana Ross or Mary Wells had made some sort of statement! :O)

EXACTLY what I thought.

	26-06-2003 19:38									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

First they uphold affirmative action and now gay sex?? This kinda does in my theory that they're a bunch of knee-jerk rightwing ideologs, don't it.

	26-06-2003 19:41									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov My guess is that the 3 dissenters were Renquist, Scalia and Thomas.

Sounds right to me.

	26-06-2003 19:42									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The SCOTUS is not a monolithic group. Rest assured, Renquist, Scalia and Thomas are indeed knee-jerk rightwing ideologues.

That Thomas would have the utter temerity to weigh in on the side claiming to promote decent sexual standards is pretty funny.

	26-06-2003 19:43									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

yeah, weird isn't it? First they uphold discrimination, and then defend equality. your judges are very inconsistent.

	26-06-2003 19:44									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Interesting that their job is to interpret the constitution and that they reversed themselves from 17 years ago. Did the constitution change and I miss it or are the Supremes more subject to the court of public opinion than we would all like? I do think that they reached the correct conclusion...what goes on in the bedroom is not the police's business.

	26-06-2003 19:45									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The SCOTUS is not a monolithic group. Rest assured, Renquist, Scalia and Thomas are indeed knee-jerk rightwing ideologues. That Thomas would have the utter temerity to weigh in on the side claiming to promote decent sexual standards is pretty funny.

Definitely.


*hmm, usually when I participate in a thread with Boris, I make lame gay jokes. However, this thread is already about gay people, so I don't know what to do. *

	26-06-2003 19:46									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

JW, Boris is now constitutionaly protected...better be careful!

	26-06-2003 19:47									#15
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

How about a law to make it illegal to be from Texas? I bet they'd change their tune pretty quick then ...

Hurrah for common sense!
Hurrah for not persecuting people based purely on sexuality!
WooHoo!

But why the **** has it taken so long?

	26-06-2003 19:47									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Crap. I'd like a real answer, not a kneejerk assumption, to the question I asked and I can not even find the opinion online.

	26-06-2003 19:51									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

And America enters the 21st century!

Plato, the Constitution is an old document and the exact intent of the framers is not really known. Because of this, it is interpreted differently by different people.

	26-06-2003 19:51									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Crap. I'd like a real answer, not a kneejerk assumption, to the question I asked and I can not even find the opinion online.

I will bet you $1,000 dollars I am absolutely correct. Think about the folks on the court. Do you honestly think the three I mentioned would be on the other side?

	26-06-2003 19:53									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

It takes a while before they post it - it should be up within a week. I may be able to find it on Westlaw at work later today though.

	26-06-2003 19:56									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael Plato, the Constitution is an old document and the exact intent of the framers is not really known. Because of this, it is interpreted differently by different people.

I agree. Hence my comment on the court of public opinion. The problem with this is, however, that it may induce the justices to make a ruling contrary to the right of self determination (Which was the case 17 years ago).

	26-06-2003 19:58									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

CNN website confirms the votes:

Kennedy writing for the majority, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissenting, and the rest concurring with Kennedy's result, but not joining his opinion.

Plato - the reversal from Bowers v. Hardwick isn't surprising, the only reason that case passed scrutiny is the dumbasses had the door to their house open, had just an unlocked screendoor in place, and the officer who caught them in the act was properly there serving a warrant on one of the parties, so the facts of the case didn't really extend to fully private activity, and for example, obtaining a warrant for intrusive surveillance or other means of determining if the sodomy statutes were being broken.

	26-06-2003 20:01									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat I may be able to find it on Westlaw at work later today though.

I'd be grateful if you could. I'm especially interested in the dissent(s).

	26-06-2003 20:02									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Mtg, well that figures doesn't it? Whenever the Supremes don't really want to get involved, they just make a narrow ruling. It would seem that the country would be better served if they limited their reviews to cases where broader rulings could be made. It would probably reduce their workload in the long run anyway. While I wasn't there, my bet would be that the founders didn't set up SCOTUS to split hairs.

	26-06-2003 20:04									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I hardly call this splitting hairs.

	26-06-2003 20:06									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher I hardly call this splitting hairs.

Oh I agree. I was refering to upholding a law where the house was unlocked and the cop was there legitamately and yada yada. The point was that they could have used that opportunity to make a broad ruling on privacy and not a narrow one on that situation.

	26-06-2003 20:06									#27
	Remove this text

Actually, they didn't setup SCOTUS to do what it's doing at all. Originally, its main task was just going to be settling disputes between states.

	26-06-2003 20:07									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The breath of the ruling, on privacy basis, rather than equal protection, will not only end the law in 4 states on homosexual sodomy, but also in the 9 other states that had all sodomy, even between husband and wife, outlawed.

	26-06-2003 20:10									#29
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael Originally, its main task was just going to be settling disputes between states.

You wouldn't have had the 11th amendment if that were so.

	26-06-2003 20:11									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola The breath of the ruling, on privacy basis, rather than equal protection, will not only end the law in 4 states on homosexual sodomy, but also in the 9 other states that had all sodomy, even between husband and wife, outlawed.

:shock:

I hadn't realized that was the implication...I thought this referred solely to laws targeting homosexual behavior.

This is HUGE for gays.