Quote:JUSTICES, 6-3, LEGALIZE GAY SEXUAL CONDUCT IN SWEEPING REVERSAL OF COURTS '86 RULING

Cite Privacy Right

Texas Sodomy Law Held Unconstitutional- Scathing Dissent

Linda Greenhouse

WASHINGTON, June 26 — The Supreme Court issued a sweeping declaration of constitutional liberty for gay men and lesbians today, overruling a Texas sodomy law in the broadest possible terms and effectively apologizing for a contrary 1986 decision that the majority said "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." The vote was 6 to 3.

Gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the court. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Justice Kennedy said further that "adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons."

While the result had been widely anticipated since the court agreed in December to hear an appeal brought by two Houston men who were prosecuted for having sex in their home, few people on either side of the case expected a decision of such scope from a court that only 17 years ago, in Bowers v. Hardwick, had dismissed the same constitutional argument as "facetious." The court overturned that precedent today.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the court of having "taken sides in the culture war" and having "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." He said that the decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation" and made same-sex marriage, which the majority opinion did not discuss, a logical if not inevitable next step. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed Justice Scalia's dissent.

While some gay rights lawyers said that there were still abundant legal obstacles to establishing a right either to gay marriage or to military service by gay soldiers, there was no doubt that the decision had profound legal and political implications. A conservative Supreme Court has now identified the gay rights cause as a basic civil rights issue.

Ruth Harlow, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the lead counsel for the two men, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner, called the decision "historic and transformative." Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Rutgers Law School who had represented the men in the Texas courts, said that the decision would affect "every kind of case" involving gay people, including employment, child custody and visitation, and adoption.

"It removes the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority," Professor Goldberg said. "Bowers took away the humanity of gay people, and this decision gives it back."

The vote to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick was 5 to 4, with Justice Kennedy joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," Justice Kennedy said. "Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the 5-to-4 majority in Bowers v. Hardwick, did not join Justice Kennedy in overruling it. But she provided the sixth vote for overturning the Texas sodomy law in a forcefully written separate opinion that attacked the law on equal protection grounds because it made "deviate sexual intercourse" — oral or anal sex — a crime only between same-sex couples and not for heterosexuals.

"A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct association with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause," Justice O'Connor said.

Texas was one of only four states — Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri are the others — to apply a criminal sodomy law exclusively to same-sex partners. An additional nine states — Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia — have criminal sodomy laws on their books that in theory, if not in practice, apply to opposite-sex couples as well. As a result of the majority's broad declaration today that the government cannot make this kind of private sexual choice a crime, all those laws are now invalid...

Quote: "A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct association with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause," Justice O'Connor said.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Now marriage on the other hand, that's a seperate issue.

Quote:Originally posted by EdenMaster
How so? That doesn't hurt anyone either.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
You seem to think that not following your extremely strict moral code means that we don't have a moral line... that is obviously not true! Its just not as strict and unbendingly harsh as your is...

The only arguement against gay marriage is religious hatred. And that just shouldn't be a decent arguement in civilized society.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The Religous Christian Right and the Religious Islamic Right only differ in which side they hate, really.

Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
I agree, Geno, under one condition: just as there are going to be homosexuals that take advantage of equal rights (no descrimination in employment), there are going to be bosses that really do descriminate. It would be unfair for the government to be looking out for one form of misconduct over another.

Weltall, I certainly don't understand your logic. First, you say it's okay for something to happen, but then say it's still not right to do it. All of your statements seem to indicate an assumption that not everyone here agrees with: homosexuality is inherently a negative thing, just like child molestation, murder, arson, and terrorism. Society decides that these things are bad, and so they are bad. I happen to disagree with this method. It has allowed the society-wide acceptance of slavery, which assumes that African Americans are inherently worth less. I prefer a more universal explanation of morals. You can dismiss it as relativism, but it has convinced me. Within relativism, I have found moral clarity.

This philosphy hinges on a nearly absolutist rule within relativism: The one and only morally wrong thing to do is to intrude upon a subject's right. Therefore, if there is no interference of rights, there is no moral wrongdoing. If subject A throws his hand through the air, his right to swing his hand does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. Meanwhile, subject B is standing, breathing in another room. Subject B's right to stand and breath does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. But when you put subject A and subject B together in the same room, there is an interference of rights. It is up to the society to decide which right has precedence: the right to physical integrity or the right to freedom of movement. Our law has decided that, when in conflict, the right to physical integrity has precendence over the right of free movement.

Many of society's moral standards can be explained in this manner. If you think this is absolutely ridiculous, point out why and I will try to defend it.

Quote:Also, a boss can't discriminate against a gay person if they don't know he or she is gay.

Quote:Society does determine what is right and what is wrong. That is the very basis of law. If morality were determined solely by the individual, then essentially anything could be moral, and anyone could justify anything simply by claiming their personal morality. There are inherent problems with that. Perhaps you have heard of NAMBLA? That is essentially the claim they make: What they do (promoting gay sex between children and adults) is moral because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. Yet, society disagrees, with good reason.

Quote:If you want to see where moral relativism takes place, you need only look at whatever lawless third-world nation you choose... Africa's got quite a few. Everyone has their own morals because there is no society, and because of that the strong can and do impose their morals over the weak, because who will stop them? In contrast, civilized nations of the world, for the most part, practice social morality in some fashion, and as a result, have a much stronger and rich society. Moral relativism is something that should only exist where there is no society. To want to dismantle social morality and artificially create a moral vacuum is, as you put it, absolutely ridiculous. It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as gay marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
It is perfectly legal in the US to fire people, evict them from apartments, or do anything else along that line to someone because they are gay. Sexuality is NOT in the list of things which are llegal to fire people for (religion, race, gender, etc), quite unfortunately...

Quote:Yeah, morals in a society are made by the people in that society.

For example, in ancient Greece man-boy love wasn't just accepted, it was a major part of their culture... and somehow I think they were somewhat successful?

Quote:You are confusing moral relativism with lack of state security or functioning government. Crucial difference there.

Quote:No, I mean an employer can't fire a gay person for being gay if they don't know that the person is gay. Usually you cannot tell without asking. It's not like skin color.

Quote:Until their society collapsed and outsiders took over, yes.

Quote:No, I am saying that moral relativism is what happens when there is no society. And there usually isn't much of a society when there is no functioning government or security.

I'm also saying that moral relativism should be vehemently discouraged in a strong society, and that those who advocate it usually do so in order to legally perpetuate activities that society finds harmful or distasteful. When society fails to set moral standards, moral standards cease to exist, and society itself follows.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
[B]So to avoid being fired gay people should live in fear of anyone ever discovering that they are gay (because they'll be fired and quite possibly kicked out of their apartment)? Yeah, that sounds just great!

Quote:Sure, like every civilization it eventually collapsed... but not before becoming one of the greatest in world history up to that time... in the sciences and in philosophy, for sure, they were amazing...

Quote:And you're trying to tell me that man-boy sex, as a "major" part of Greek culture, is responsible for this?

Hell, by your logic we should re-introduce slavery, since empires who practiced that fun little activity also coincidentally happened to be at the forefront of civilization!

Quote:Life in fear? How about "Keep your sex life to yourself because it's no one else's business".

Or do you think people should make a habit of telling everyone what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Seriously, do you ever even think about what you type? Or do you willfully instigate the hate-speech? You're telling me that if a gay man acts at work the same way I do, he's living in fear?

Seriously, the nonsense you come out with makes me want to scream bloody murder sometimes.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No, of course not. All I'm trying to say is that morality IS relative, to a point. Some things CAN be wrong that a society sees as bad... things that hurt others. Such as human sacrifice or slavery... but something that is purely a moral issue like that? No.

Quote:Whether you mean it or not, telling homosexuals that they MUST stay in the closet or they will have major reppucussions is absurd and should be illegal. Its blackmail, really... forcing people to act one way just so they don't be kicked out by the paranoid society. That is absolutely wrong for issues such as this.

Its not "not telling people what happens in their own bedrooms"... that should be private, normally. But homosexuality doesn't mean that, not even close... its not like homosexuals have to have (or have had) a sexual partner to be found out as homosexuals and fired or whatever...

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Women going topless in public is an equality issue though. Why must they have tops and not men?
I know guys with chests bigger than some of the girls I know but they don't have to wear tops.
We are taught from a young age that women's breasts are sexual, but if we were to see them all the time from a young age we would not find them so sexual or contreversial. It's like in the 30's when it was considered inapropriate for a woman to show any of her leg above the knee, and men considered it sexual if they were to reveal this area, but now we don't think twice about cloths that reveal much more than that

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
They should have the option to go that way in areas where men can.
Do personally want them too?No most of the women who choose to do this in places where it is legal are ugly or as you guys said trying to make a scene. Would I want my girlfriend or wife wandering around that way? Probably not. But I still think they should have the option

Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
Then I should be able to walk around with my wang swinging free.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Only if girls could also expose their pussy

Quote: that made no sense.

Quote: Weltall:

Society does determine what is right and what is wrong.

Quote:If morality were determined solely by the individual, then essentially anything could be moral, and anyone could justify anything simply by claiming their personal morality.

Quote:Social morality has been a part of human civilization since the very beginning. It has been responsible for some bad things, the Crusades and slavery being two examples, but it has also been an integral part of social fabric and civilizational advance.

Quote:If you want to see where moral relativism takes place, you need only look at whatever lawless third-world nation you choose... Africa's got quite a few. Everyone has their own morals because there is no society, and because of that the strong can and do impose their morals over the weak, because who will stop them? In contrast, civilized nations of the world, for the most part, practice social morality in some fashion, and as a result, have a much stronger and rich society. Moral relativism is something that should only exist where there is no society. To want to dismantle social morality and artificially create a moral vacuum is, as you put it, absolutely ridiculous. It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as gay marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it.

Quote:In addition, a social morality system is utterly useless when two societies collide. If there is a discrepency in the values of the societies, how can both be right? In fact, one can model the world as a society of societies. The country-sized societies are the individuals, while the world is the common society. I find this global society to be eerily familiar to your disjointed, morally relativistic society, where the strong impose their morals on the weak, and there is nobody to stop them. I guess all I can do is sigh.

On the second part, you are begging the question. How do you define immorality? Is it because society thinks so? I hope it is clear that society's opinion does not define what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. It is merely a collective opinion. If this debate was occuring just a few decades ago, you would be the person arguing that because society does not agree with interracial relations, interracial marriages should be illegal. You would say, "It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as interracial marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it."

Quote:Time: What's your take on the Supreme Court's ruling that antisodomy laws are unconstitutional?

Gay sex may well be a mystery of life, but I'll be damned if I can find it in the Constitution.

Quote:I hope the moral structure I proposed does not get pidgeonholed into being about "harm," unless harm is to be defined as, "a breach of one's protected rights." Physical integrity is just one of those. So, for example, the right to own property is protected.

Quote:What particular part of the constitution prevenst the US from getting more land exactly?

Quote:Oh and, we value physical integrity? Um, you mean as a basic principle? I'm not sure anyone does. Americans LOVE explosives for instance, and I don't think anyone thinks it's wrong to destroy stuff unless it's someone else's property.