6-3 vote

[cwsox]

saying the state has no interest in legislating people's priavte lives, by a 6-3 vote the US Supreme Court struck down the anti sodomy laws in Texas - and thus everywhere - and thus ended the prosecution of two gay men for having mutual consensual private sexual relations.

 

[BrandoFan]

Poor Rick....

[cwsox]

For Immediate release:

Contact: Sean Kosofsky 248-761-2886

June 26, 2003

Jeff Montgomery 313-506-1847

 

Rudy Serra 313-331-7839

 

SUPREME COURT REJECTS SODOMY LAWS:

Highest Court Affirms "Equal Protection" for Gays and Lesbians

 

(Washington D.C.) - In the most sweeping decision ever on gay and lesbian

rights, the nation's highest court ruled today that so-called "sodomy" laws

are unconstitutional. The term "sodomy," which has been defined differently

depending on the jurisdictions, the judge and the era it was interpreted,

was challenged in part because of its vagueness.

 

"This decision is a victory for all Americans," said Jeff Montgomery,

Executive Director of Triangle Foundation, Michigan's leading civil rights

organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. "The

government should not be meddling in people's bedrooms. Everyone has a basic

right to privacy and should not live in fear that police could enter their

home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their

own home. The court has finally corrected one it's most embarrassing

decisions ever (Bowers v Hardwick) and affirmed equal protection for gay and

lesbian people. This decision is fantastic news for all Americans interested

in stepping out of the past and respecting all relationships for what they

contribute to our society. Finally gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans can

be freed from the label of 'criminal' or 'outlaw' in this country"

 

Lawrence v Texas was challenged mostly because the Texas statute

criminalized same-sex only "sodomy." Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

argued that these and other sodomy laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment's

equal protection clause because it targeted gay, lesbian and bisexual people

for prosecution. The case also argued that the statute violated the

fundamental right to privacy.

 

Michigan is one of approximately 15 states have some form of sodomy law

still on the books. Michigan's statute "MCL 750.158 The Abominable and

Detestable Crime Against Nature" has roots dating back to 1820. Michigan's

sodomy laws were stricken down in 1990 (MOHR v Kelly) with plaintiffs from

several counties and attorneys from the Michigan Organization for Human

Rights (MOHR) and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (LLDEF). The Wayne

County Circuit Court decision was never appealed by the Attorney General so

opponents of the law believe it is already unenforceable anywhere in

Michigan. Others argue that because the law is still on the books, it was

enforceable until today.

 

"This decision will have and unprecedented impact on the lives of every gay,

lesbian and bisexual American," said Rudy Serra, Criminal and Civil Rights

Attorney and Triangle Foundation Board member. "The presence of sodomy laws

has been the single largest legal obstacle to gaining full civil rights in

this country. By claiming that gays and lesbians are felons, anti-gay judges

and policy makers have blocked laws allowing equal rights, hate crime

prosecutions, and equity in parenting and family benefits."

 

A demonstration will be held tonight in Detroit at the Federal Courthouse on

Lafayette and Fort at 6:00 PM. To find out about other demonstrations around

the country visit www.CABN.org/DefendOurRights.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Between this and not condemning affirmative action @ U of M, this court is suprisingly pretty progressive...for being filled with GOP golfing buddies.

 

I can't wait to see what "Rev." Fred Phelps has to say about this.

 

to the Supreme Court

[southsider2k5]

to getting the goverment out of peoples bedrooms.

[BrandoFan]

I can't wait to see what "Rev." Fred Phelps has to say about this

 

Forget him , waht about that ol' homophobe Mel Gibson?

 

 

(Say, isn't his anti-Semitic Christ epic, Passions, coming down the pipe? Amaraic = fun for everybody!)

[Spiff]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

[cwsox]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

spiff, this case never would have been before the Supreme Court if the police had not entered a home and arested two men for doing it, and a court in Texas convicted them for consenual sex. That's how it gets to the court - because of the appeal of the arrest and conviction. Study the facts of the case, please. No matter what you seriously doubt, it happened.

 

As for the rest - the special rights/unequal bulls*** - we'll deal with that next week. Right now I am cheering the court.

[SI1020]

Between this and not condemning affirmative action @ U of M, this court is suprisingly pretty progressive...for being filled with GOP golfing buddies.

 

I can't wait to see what "Rev." Fred Phelps has to say about this. 

 

to the Supreme Court

The two cases you mention are an example of why I think the traditional liberal vs conservative yelling and screaming is out of date. There is a side of what is alleged to be "conservatism" that I am uncomfortable with. Whatever your views in human sexuality it should not be the governments business what anyone does with another like minded adult in the privacy of their own home. There should be no government "Sex Police" breaking down the door to your bedroom. That's Orwellian. For those religious conservatives who are afraid, "gay marriage" is next, I say you're probably right. I would like to see the states have the power to make that choice however, I value the 9th and 10th amendments and think they are now largely ignored in favor of sweeping federal mandates and laws. As far as the Affirmative Action cases go I think the court was correct in striking down the U of Michigans de facto "quota" system for undergrads and that they blew the law school case big time. Discrimination is wrong, that's my view and it will never change. So, from where I sit the court got it right 2 out of 3 times. Many so called "conservatives" would say 1 out of 3. It depends on if you have a liberterian or authoritarian view of government. My belief is that governments should keep the sword in the sheath as much as possible.

[Spiff]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

spiff, this case never would have been before the Supreme Court if the police had not entered a home and arested two men for doing it, and a court in Texas convicted them for consenual sex. That's how it gets to the court - because of the appeal of the arrest and conviction. Study the facts of the case, please. No matter what you seriously doubt, it happened.

 

As for the rest - the special rights/unequal bulls*** - we'll deal with that next week. Right now I am cheering the court.

hey i never said anything about texas. texas is practically another country

 

when i said i seriously doubt any, i meant i seriously doubt most police officers, the ones with common sense/lacking agendas, would bust into someone's house even if they did know two gay people were breaking a law. i phrased it wrong, i know there are exceptions to every rule and obviously someone had to have been arrested for this issue to go to the supreme court.

[cwsox]

cool spiff - have a great weekend and beat the minor league north side team!!!!!

[cwsox]

SI1020 - if you find the great debate about the Michigan case with baggio months back, I said then the court would uphold the law school and order modifications in the undergrad admissions process but otherwise uphold it - I called it exactly right - although it was a simple matter of case law -

 

I think they should have upheld everything totally but that is the way it goes - what they were going to do was very, very predictable especially after the oral arguments

[CubKilla]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

spiff, this case never would have been before the Supreme Court if the police had not entered a home and arested two men for doing it, and a court in Texas convicted them for consenual sex. That's how it gets to the court - because of the appeal of the arrest and conviction. Study the facts of the case, please. No matter what you seriously doubt, it happened.

 

As for the rest - the special rights/unequal bulls*** - we'll deal with that next week. Right now I am cheering the court.

hey i never said anything about texas. texas is practically another country

 

when i said i seriously doubt any, i meant i seriously doubt most police officers, the ones with common sense/lacking agendas, would bust into someone's house even if they did know two gay people were breaking a law. i phrased it wrong, i know there are exceptions to every rule and obviously someone had to have been arrested for this issue to go to the supreme court.

If I'm not mistaken, the police in this case were at the house for an entirely different reason than just to arrest two homosexuals engaged in homosexual sex (serving a warrant, called to a criminal action progress, etc).

 

Having said that, homosexuals should have all the same rights and privleges as heterosexuals. We're not living in the Dark Ages anymore.

[Texsox]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

spiff, this case never would have been before the Supreme Court if the police had not entered a home and arested two men for doing it, and a court in Texas convicted them for consenual sex. That's how it gets to the court - because of the appeal of the arrest and conviction. Study the facts of the case, please. No matter what you seriously doubt, it happened.

 

As for the rest - the special rights/unequal bulls*** - we'll deal with that next week. Right now I am cheering the court.

Be fair. The police received a call that a man was being attacked. They entered the apartment thinking they were rescuing someone. The men were rather vocal.

[Texsox]

while i agree with the decision, i seriously doubt any policeman would "enter their home, arrest them and throw them in jail for adult, consensual sex in their own home."

 

now hate-crime laws, that's a whole different story. if gays and lesbians want equality, which they have gotten with this ruling, i dont see why they would champion a cause that makes people unequal.

spiff, this case never would have been before the Supreme Court if the police had not entered a home and arested two men for doing it, and a court in Texas convicted them for consenual sex. That's how it gets to the court - because of the appeal of the arrest and conviction. Study the facts of the case, please. No matter what you seriously doubt, it happened.

 

As for the rest - the special rights/unequal bulls*** - we'll deal with that next week. Right now I am cheering the court.

hey i never said anything about texas. texas is practically another country

 

when i said i seriously doubt any, i meant i seriously doubt most police officers, the ones with common sense/lacking agendas, would bust into someone's house even if they did know two gay people were breaking a law. i phrased it wrong, i know there are exceptions to every rule and obviously someone had to have been arrested for this issue to go to the supreme court.

If I'm not mistaken, the police in this case were at the house for an entirely different reason than just to arrest two homosexuals engaged in homosexual sex (serving a warrant, called to a criminal action progress, etc).

 

Having said that, homosexuals should have all the same rights and privleges as heterosexuals. We're not living in the Dark Ages anymore.

Correct. They received a tip that a man was being attacked. They entered to find a middle age white guy in love with a younger black man. At the time there was also some discussion whether the police would have made an arrest if the situation was different. There were some very ugly undertones to this case.

[cwsox]

my strong recollection is the police came by for something totally unrelated - and the news report that I just heard on NPR said that too.

 

Oh well.

 

on some occasions on the good guys win and they won today in this decision.

[clujer420]

How's about everyone just shut up about their sexuality and they wouldn't have to worry about the government "interfering" with their lives? Unless 2 guys are butt-f***ing in public, who the hell cares what they do? Just keep it to your damned selves and go about the lifestyle that you have chosen.

[Rex Kickass]

How eloquently spoken.

 

Why is this important? Its a step to not having to worry about getting fired because someone might think youre gay. Its a step to not having to worry about being "found out" because sometimes people do seek it. This ruling gives gay, bi, trans people the right to exist in the USA. And that´s pretty damn important.

[Mathew]

How eloquently spoken. 

 

Why is this important? Its a step to not having to worry about getting fired because someone might think youre gay. Its a step to not having to worry about being "found out" because sometimes people do seek it. This ruling gives gay, bi, trans people the right to exist in the USA. And that´s pretty damn important.

Well said.