Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[chequita guevara]

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.

[Jaguar]

Mind if I join you, che?

[Boris Godunov]

Hallelujah. Reason prevails.

[reds4ever]

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

[DinoDoc]

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

[Boris Godunov]

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

[Cruddy]

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.

[Zkribbler]

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.

[Jaguar]

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

Sounds right to me.

[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.

[Az]

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

[PLATO]

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.

[Jaguar]

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. *

[PLATO]

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

[FrustratedPoet]

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?