Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Supreme Court Lifts Sodomy Ban

gotham island fae

15:56 / 26.06.03

Yahoo News

Assuming no one tries to defend Kansas' homophobia as legislatively different than Texas', we may soon be able to bugger without fear of legal ramifications, here in the Land of Ah's, as well.

And this with a conservative Court, too... What is the world coming to?

17:46 / 26.06.03

From Yahoo too, the dissenting views (Scalia and Thomas):

"The court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Although the majority opinion said the case did not "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Scalia said the ruling invites laws allowing gay marriage. "This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he cannot agree to strike it down because he finds no general right to privacy in the Constitution.

...I'm assuming that Scalia is one of those 80-year old justices, right?

18:09 / 26.06.03

In his late 60's if I remember correctly but he and Renhquist are two of the most vile archconservatives to have the job.

Woo-hoo! Finally some good news in a miasma of complacency.

20:57 / 26.06.03

Excellent. Must find a Texan to bugger this weekend to celebrate. And, they have reaffirmed (though limited) Affirmative Action. This, from such a right wing crew too, who knew?

Will the run continue when a couple of them hang up their robes soon, as is widely predicted. Bush will then be the non-partisan guy charged with appointing their replacements. People particularly concerned about the balance of opinion on the legality of abortion legislation, according to pundits over here in UK.

If Tony Blair is replacing the Lord Chancellor with an appointed British "Supreme Court" on the US model, perhaps wiser not to adopt the model wholesale. Bit of tinkering in transition might be shrewd, for the long term.

17:53 / 27.06.03

I believe and wholeheartedly support the repeal of laws such as the one in Texas. It needs to be legal for homosexuals to have sex. My reasons are this:
1. Homosexual sex is not wrong if heterosexual sex is not wrong.
2. Such laws would be unenforceable.
3. Such laws would not protect public health, as has been claimed
4. Such laws would discriminate against a class of people, creating divisions that harm the nation and hurting individuals without good cause.

Now, I'm looking at the fourteenth amendment. Here's the part that seems to be relevant:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I guess the supreme court reasoning is similar to my fourth reason? I'm a little confused, honestly. I know log cabin republicans filed an Amicus Brief. I'll have to check it out, later.

06:05 / 29.06.03

I think the full scope of this decision hasn't been realized in any mass media, yet. While the law does now legalize homosexual intercourse (which really wasn't THAT large of an issue. I mean, how many people actually lived in fear of being arrested for having sex with a member of the same sex here in America? Well, I do live in the Bay Area... and I'd be afraid just to live in Texas - or Kansas, for that matter... ehh, fuck the whole midwest scares the bej-eebus outa me), it also reaffirms the citizen's right to privacy in his own home. This stands in direct opposition to more recent legislative movements such as the Patriot Act. When Patriot Act-related cases coime to the court, this case will stand as a reflection of the current court's opinion on privacy. (It also opens doors for future movements for the legalization of controlled substances.) Someone is standing in opposition to Big Brother.

But all that means bollocks if Bush gets another term, and gets to fill two or three open chairs.

But for today, personal liberty has been given acknowledgement

18:53 / 29.06.03

The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned. And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures. "That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.

...just when I thought the anti-flag burning amendment was the sillies thing to tack onto the constitution...

19:18 / 29.06.03

Yeah. I saw Frist on This Week this Sunday. Almost as bad as Santorum in my opinion. Why is homosexuality, what's done between two perfectly consenting adults, is now used in the same breath with criminal activities, albeit implied? Somebody explain to me what's so damn criminal about two persons wanting their union in all matters recognized equally by the state or to have the state stay OUT of one's bedroom?

I swear bigotry is such a hydra. Slice off one ugly head and two others pop right up to take its place.

Something tells me the Supreme Court decision is just going to fuel these bastards into something even more drastic.

20:34 / 29.06.03

Distillable Mass, I do not believe the implication was that, if we allow sodomy, all manner of crimes will be allowed. Rather, it's the reasoning that was used to overturn the Texas law. Just because we hate the law doesn't mean that we should support any supreme court ruling that overturns it. I think fears about implications on prostitution laws, drug laws, and the like are quite reasonable fears. Many of us at Barbelith are simpathetic or even very supportive of legalization of drugs or of prostitution, so we may say there is no reason to fear. Bring it on. Okay, maybe that's right.