The Supreme Court Tries Sodomy

[zengrifter]

The Supreme Court Tries Sodomy
… and discovers that Texas is confused about it too.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Before we get hung up in the nuts and bolts of Lawrence v. Texas, let's be clear: There are two kinds of homophobia, at least in Texas. The first is a hatred of all things homosexual. That's bad. The other involves a certain fondness for gay people—an acceptance that they are A-OK, so long as they don't commit any of those sex acts they're inclined toward. This sort of Will & Grace ("gays are so cute, but don't show me what they do in bed") homophobia seems not only to be defensible according to the state of Texas; it also appears to be the lynchpin of their argument in today's long-awaited gay sodomy case.

The facts of Lawrence are straightforward and mostly undisputed: Texas police entered the apartment of Houston resident John Lawrence in response to a neighbor's fabricated claim that a man in there with a gun was "going crazy." What the cops actually found was Lawrence and Tyron Garner having anal sex, for which they were promptly arrested under a Texas law prohibiting "deviate sexual behavior" (i.e., oral or anal sex) between persons of the same gender.

Pause here to consider that bestiality is not considered "deviate" under Texas law.

Lawrence and Garner were jailed, prosecuted, and fined over $200 each. They challenged the law, arguing that it violated the 14th Amendment's promise of privacy in intimate sexual matters and its guarantee of equal protection under the law. They prevailed in the Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas, but lost, 7-2, when the court reheard the case en banc. So they appealed to Texas' highest appellate court, which declined to hear it, and on to the U.S. Supreme Court, where their argument was heard this morning.

MORE- http://slate.msn.com/id/2080746

[aslan]

While I find male same-sex intercourse repugnant, I don't think it should be a matter of illegality. I remember when I was in the Air Force hearing about a sergeant who went to jail for having "perverted" sex (oral sex) with his wife. To me that tops them all. But it was then against the UCMJ and someone with a dislike for this sergeant turned him in, or so the story went.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by aslan

While I find male same-sex intercourse repugnant, I don't think it should be a matter of illegality. I remember when I was in the Air Force hearing about a sergeant who went to jail for having "perverted" sex (oral sex) with his wife. To me that tops them all. But it was then against the UCMJ and someone with a dislike for this sergeant turned him in, or so the story went.

I agree with you. This homosexuality is a mental disorder to me and I don't want to see it any more than I want to see someone playing with his wastes. But people doing either of those things in private doesn't need to be a crime. Nor should anyone be mistreated because they have a mental problem.

Now sodomy and "deviate sexual behavior" in general the state has no interest in legislating against. So what if a man and woman want to have oral or anal sex? Almost everyone has had the first and most of us have had the second- these are not practices that are beyond a standard deviation from the norm in contemporary culture so it is not accurate to even call them "deviate." The behavior with animals, now that is truly deviate, but really no worse than homosexuality.

[daddybo]

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

I agree with you. This homosexuality is a mental disorder to me and I don't want to see it any more than I want to see someone playing with his wastes. But people doing either of those things in private doesn't need to be a crime. Nor should anyone be mistreated because they have a mental problem.

Now sodomy and "deviate sexual behavior" in general the state has no interest in legislating against. So what if a man and woman want to have oral or anal sex? Almost everyone has had the first and most of us have had the second- these are not practices that are beyond a standard deviation from the norm in contemporary culture so it is not accurate to even call them "deviate." The behavior with animals, now that is truly deviate, but really no worse than homosexuality.

That was WAY TOOO MUCH Infornmation AM

P.S. It's also rather obvious you've never herded sheep in Texas.

[Brutus]

It's also rather obvious you've never herded sheep in Texas

theres two sides to every story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAfGX7fKwHU
video not for younger or easily offended audiences.

I'm reading the article, and it mentions Judge Renquist. then I look at the date, its from 2003. what happened next? Zen, did you post this to open up a discussion about homosexuality and sodomy? or possibly draw ImPlay out from behind the veil of private messaging? why not open up a poll about attitudes toward sodomy? if its legal to respond

[Katweezel]

Originally Posted by Brutus

theres two sides to every story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAfGX7fKwHU
video not for younger or easily offended audiences.

I'm reading the article, and it mentions Judge Renquist. then I look at the date, its from 2003. what happened next? Zen, did you post this to open up a discussion about homosexuality and sodomy? or possibly draw ImPlay out from behind the veil of private messaging? why not open up a poll about attitudes toward sodomy? if its legal to respond

What happened was somebody got a bum rap.

[johndoe]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

The Supreme Court Tries Sodomy

That is quite a gem of a headline, though.

[daddybo]

Originally Posted by Brutus

theres two sides to every story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAfGX7fKwHU
video not for younger or easily offended audiences.

I'm reading the article, and it mentions Judge Renquist. then I look at the date, its from 2003. what happened next? Zen, did you post this to open up a discussion about homosexuality and sodomy? or possibly draw ImPlay out from behind the veil of private messaging? why not open up a poll about attitudes toward sodomy? if its legal to respond

All I can say is EWWWWWE.

[Katweezel]

Originally Posted by johndoe

That is quite a gem of a headline, though.

Were they aware they may have been breaking the law when they tried it?

[Automatic Monkey]

My problem with them is the attitude of the typical homosexual about age-of-consent laws. There's no such thing as "too young" to those people. They know that once a boy gets older and gets involved with girls they're not going to have much luck switching him over to what they do, so they go after them when they are very young and still confused about everything.