Fritz Stirs the Pot - not war related

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 03:06 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/news/891114_asp.htm

Supreme Court hears sodomy case

Texas fights to retain law in case over gay sex

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, March 26 — The Supreme Court should reverse course and strike down a ban on homosexual sex as outdated, discriminatory and harmful, a lawyer for two men arrested in their bedroom argued Wednesday. The court appeared deeply divided over a Texas law that makes it a crime for gay couples to engage in sex acts that are legal for heterosexual couples. The court was widely criticized for a ruling 17 years ago that upheld a similar sodomy ban.

STATES SHOULD not be able to single out one group and make their conduct illegal solely because the state dislikes that conduct, lawyer Paul Smith argued for the Texas men.
“There is a long history of the state making moral judgments,” retorted Justice Antonin Scalia. “You can make it sound very puritanical,” but the state may have good reasons, Scalia added.
“Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. That’s why people regulate,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist added dryly.
Justice Stephen Breyer challenged Houston prosecutor Charles Rosenthal to justify why the state has any interest in peeping into the bedrooms of gay people.
“Why isn’t that something the state has no business in, because it isn’t hurting anybody?” Breyer asked.
The state has an interest in protecting marriage and family and promoting the birth of children, Rosenthal replied. “Texas can set bright line moral standards for its people.”
A large crowd stood in line outside the court before the oral arguments in hopes of getting a seat for one of the court’s biggest cases this year. A knot of protesters stood apart, holding signs that read “AIDS is God’s revenge,” “God sent the sniper” and other messages.
State anti-sodomy laws, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are infrequently enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers and gay rights supporters said.
“We truly hope the Supreme Court in its wisdom will remove this mechanism that has been used for so long to obstruct basic civility to gay and lesbian people,” said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign.

CHANGING TIMES

In 1986, a narrow majority of the court upheld Georgia’s sodomy law in a ruling that became a touchstone for the growing gay rights movement. Even then the court’s decision seemed out of step and was publicly unpopular, said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who argued on the losing side of the case.
“We’re now dealing with a very small handful of statutes in a circumstance where the country, whatever its attitudes toward discrimination based on sexual orientation, (has reached) a broad consensus that what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is simply none of the state’s business.”
As recently as 1960, every state had a sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit “deviate sexual intercourse,” or oral and anal sex, between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

ALLIES AND BACKGROUND
An unusual array of organizations is backing the two Texas men. In addition to a long list of gay rights, human rights and medical groups, a group of conservative Republicans and the libertarian Cato Institute and Institute for Justice argued in friend of the court filings that government should stay out of the bedroom.
“This case is an opportunity to confirm that the constitutional command of equal protection requires that gays be treated as equal to all other citizens under the law, subject to neither special preferences nor special disabilities,” the brief for the Republican Unity Coalition said.
On the other side, the Texas government and its allies say the case is about the right of states to enforce the moral standards of their communities.
“The states of the union have historically prohibited a wide variety of extramarital sexual conduct,” Texas authorities argued in legal papers. Nothing in that legal tradition recognizes “a constitutionally protected liberty interest in engaging in any form of sexual conduct with whomever one chooses,” the state argued.
Conservative legal and social organizations, religious groups and the states of Alabama, South Carolina and Utah back Texas in the case.
The case began in 1998, when a neighbor tricked police with a false report of a black man “going crazy” in John Geddes Lawrence’s apartment. Police pushed their way in and found Lawrence having anal sex with another man, Tyron Garner.
Although Texas rarely enforced its antisodomy law, officers decided to book the two men and jail them overnight on charges of “deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” They were each fined $200 plus court costs.
The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

KWhit · 03-26-2003, 03:09 PM

I cannot believe that states still have this law on the books. But to actually ARREST two guys in the privacy of their home is bullshit.

Complete discrimination.

Ben E Lou · 03-26-2003, 03:22 PM

Several thoughts....

1. Most of y'all know my stance on the immorality of homosexual behavior. however, I don't think it should be against the law.

2. Georgia's sodomy laws were struck down in the last few years.

3. OK. Just thinking about it is gross, but here's what I'm wondering: how long were those boys goin' at it, and was it so loud that it alerted a neighbor??? The, err, "passion" had apparently progressed to the point where whatever was happening was loud enough for a neighbor to know what was going on. This neighbor called the cops. The dispatcher gets in touch with a couple o' boys in blue. They cops arrive, knock in the door, and they're STILL going at it?????

I don't even want to think about it any more.

Ksyrup · 03-26-2003, 03:23 PM

Could be the guy knew they were gay, was spying on them, and called the cops when he thought they were going at it so that they'd get caught.

Either way, the caller was an asshat.

John Galt · 03-26-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Could be the guy knew they were gay, was spying on them, and called the cops when he thought they were going at it so that they'd get caught.

Either way, the caller was an asshat.

My feelings on the matter are as well known as Skydog's (although they are quite different), but hopefully we can all agree with Ksyrup that the caller was, without a doubt, an asshat.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 04:15 PM

What do folks think about states regulating behavior?

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 04:35 PM

Kind of a broad question. Some behavior should not be regulated by states, some should. In principle the concept is fine, but it must be on a case by case basis and the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that the behavior is damaging to society.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
Kind of a broad question. Some behavior should not be regulated by states, some should. In principle the concept is fine, but it must be on a case by case basis and the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that the behavior is damaging to society.

but prove to who?

Ben E Lou · 03-26-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
What do folks think about states regulating behavior?

Typically speaking, I feel that the standard of illegality should be this: Every adult is free to do as he or she pleases, as long as it doesn't, by force or fraud, deprive another person of any portion of their life, liberty and/or property.

Samdari · 03-26-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
What do folks think about states regulating behavior?

As it regards say, murder and rape, I am generally in favor of it.

albionmoonlight · 03-26-2003, 04:39 PM

I think that it is wrong that states DO get to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedroom but DO NOT get to regulate abortions. I would do it exactly the opposite way. I'd let states ban abortions if they want, but not bar sexual acts by consenting adults in the privacy of their residences.

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
but prove to who?

The public.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
The public.

Ok, but what public (the state, or the nation)? How much of the public should agree? Should this be by referendum?

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
Ok, but what public (the state, or the nation)? How much of the public should agree? Should this be by referendum?

1. The state in question.
2. Good question. I think it is kind of an abstract. Since we do live in a democracy, I guess I will go with the majority, but I'm not sure that is correct.
3. In some cases, if the legislature is clearly not representing the will of the public.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
1. The state in question.
2. Good question. I think it is kind of an abstract. Since we do live in a democracy, I guess I will go with the majority, but I'm not sure that is correct.
3. In some cases, if the legislature is clearly not representing the will of the public.

1.) So we are OK with different standards in different states?

2 & 3) If referendum is only when the legislature is clearly not representing the will of the public, how will you know when they do not agree? By petition?

----

I think you currently describe the situation in most states. States regulate behavior. The majority, as repsesented by a legislature, passed a law (and choose not to repeal it.) I think every state has a provision for referendum.

JPhillips · 03-26-2003, 04:57 PM

Here here Skydog!

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
1.) So we are OK with different standards in different states?

2 & 3) If referendum is only when the legislature is clearly not representing the will of the public, how will you know when they do not agree? By petition?

----

I think you currently describe the situation in most states. States regulate behavior. The majority, as repsesented by a legislature, passed a law (and choose not to repeal it.) I think every state has a provision for referendum.

1.) So we are OK with different standards in different states?
-No argument here.

2 & 3) If referendum is only when the legislature is clearly not representing the will of the public, how will you know when they do not agree? By petition?
-If a group gathers the needed number of petition signers to get a referendum on the ballot and it then passes.

----

I don't disagree at all. I do think it is stupid, backward, and discriminatory, but if that is what they want, they have the right to have it.

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 05:10 PM

I think this may be a problem for the state.

"The Texas statute applies only to homosexuals, and the couple contends that violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030326-124712-8943r

QuikSand · 03-26-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
but prove to who?

A state that wishes to restrict its citizens' conduct should have to prove that by doing so, they do not tread upon the fundamental rights granted to the people under the founding documents of these United States.

So, the states properly have a burden to prove this to those who are empowered to interpret the federal Constitution, and the various rights granted therein. They also, where appropriate, must prove this to those who interpret other subordinate laws, such as state constitutions with similar provisions. In either case, that means that the judgment lies in the hands of a duly elected or appointed judiciary.

Matters of fundamental rights are not appropriate to simply be thrown to the people at whatever level of government can reach a quorum. So, in that, I disagree with the path that this discussion is leading down.

This is a matter that is properly placed before the Supreme Court, and they are the appropriate arbiters of the potentially conflicting matters (in this case) of individual liberties and states' rights.

QuikSand · 03-26-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
Since we do live in a democracy, I guess I will go with the majority, but I'm not sure that is correct.

I usually find this deliniation to be more flippant than useful, but here is where I believe the difference between a "democracy" and a "democratic republic" is meaningful.

We do not simply decide things by majority vote in this country. We elect representatives, who then in turn represent us in making decisions, and then stand before the electorate through the voting process. We do not simply toss everything to a plebescite, California notwithstanding. This was avery carefully crafted decision, and the founding fathers quite deliberately established the processes we have to guard against "the tyranny of the majority." You can get 50% plus one to agree to an awful lot of stupid things, certainly here and probably anywhere. A system that deliberately makes it difficult to change laws or tread upon rights is something that is designed to protect us, and on many occasions, I'm certain that it has and will.

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 05:55 PM

I knew that was the wrong answer, but I wasn't sure how else to put it. Not shocking that you were able to spell it out clearly.

CAsterling · 03-26-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
I usually find this deliniation to be more flippant than useful, but here is where I believe the difference between a "democracy" and a "democratic republic" is meaningful.

We do not simply decide things by majority vote in this country. We elect representatives, who then in turn represent us in making decisions, and then stand before the electorate through the voting process. We do not simply toss everything to a plebescite, California notwithstanding. This was avery carefully crafted decision, and the founding fathers quite deliberately established the processes we have to guard against "the tyranny of the majority." You can get 50% plus one to agree to an awful lot of stupid things, certainly here and probably anywhere. A system that deliberately makes it difficult to change laws or tread upon rights is something that is designed to protect us, and on many occasions, I'm certain that it has and will.

Unless of course if you live in Washington D.C, where you have the right to Taxation without any representation

QuikSand · 03-26-2003, 06:02 PM

Not quite without any representation, but too close for conscience. I understand the politics of the issue make it difficult, but the fact that DC residents get no vote in Congress is beyond embarassing.

CAsterling · 03-26-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
Not quite without any representation, but too close for conscience. I understand the politics of the issue make it difficult, but the fact that DC residents get no vote in Congress is beyond embarassing.

Thanks for the correction, I'm still trying to understand how things work over here - visiting the colonies is so confusing

Seriously, appreciate it, something else I now understand a little more about in the US.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
A state that wishes to restrict its citizens' conduct should have to prove that by doing so, they do not tread upon the fundamental rights granted to the people under the founding documents of these United States.

So, the states properly have a burden to prove this to those who are empowered to interpret the federal Constitution, and the various rights granted therein.

...

This is a matter that is properly placed before the Supreme Court, and they are the appropriate arbiters of the potentially conflicting matters (in this case) of individual liberties and states' rights.

How often should a state have to (re)prove that they do not tread upon the fundimental rights granted to the people?

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 07:05 PM

dola,

I respectfully disagree with Quik on DC. Voting representation in congress is limited to states, and it should remain that way.

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
How often should a state have to (re)prove that they do not tread upon the fundimental rights granted to the people?

It is, of course, a case by case basis. It can be challenged in court, even if the same law has been challenged before. A good example would be any law related to abortion. One side or the other will challenge it again and again and again.

oykib · 03-26-2003, 07:49 PM

Not to threadjack... but does anyone here not think that the lack of DC representation has something to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population is poor and black?

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 07:51 PM

Well, since it has been like that since inception, no, I don't think it does.

oykib · 03-26-2003, 07:52 PM

DC didn't have a million people when it was built.

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 07:54 PM

Exactly my point.

oykib · 03-26-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
Exactly my point.

What's that mean?

Tarkus · 03-26-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
OK. Just thinking about it is gross, but here's what I'm wondering: how long were those boys goin' at it, and was it so loud that it alerted a neighbor??? The, err, "passion" had apparently progressed to the point where whatever was happening was loud enough for a neighbor to know what was going on. This neighbor called the cops. The dispatcher gets in touch with a couple o' boys in blue. They cops arrive, knock in the door, and they're STILL going at it?????

I don't even want to think about it any more.

I don't know, but if someone were slamming a penis up my ass for 10 minutes or more I'd probably be making one hell of a racket.

Tarkus

astralhaze · 03-26-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oykib
What's that mean?

Washington D.C. has never had representation. The predominantly poor black populace has been a more recent development. I don't see what the connection between the two is.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 09:11 PM

DC does not have representation because it is not a state. that is the only reason.

Unless they become a state, it would take a amendment to give them representation.

I do not know if they meet the requirements for statehood

QuikSand · 03-26-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
dola,

I respectfully disagree with Quik on DC. Voting representation in congress is limited to states, and it should remain that way.

I have no problem with that statement, actually. The District of Columbia should be granted statehood, and full privileges that accompany it. However, a combination of interests who would be harmed by that happening will ensure that it will not happen.

QuikSand · 03-26-2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
How often should a state have to (re)prove that they do not tread upon the fundimental rights granted to the people?

Just as frequently as there is a substantively new challenge to one or more of those rights, by one or more individuals with standing before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Fritz · 03-26-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuikSand
I have no problem with that statement, actually. The District of Columbia should be granted statehood, and full privileges that accompany it. However, a combination of interests who would be harmed by that happening will ensure that it will not happen.

Frankly, I am not sure what I think about DC getting two Senators.

Easy Mac · 03-26-2003, 09:26 PM

Well, they already have 100, I'm not sure 2 would make a difference.

And I really thought this thread would have something to do with Pot. I am saddened.

tucker342 · 03-26-2003, 10:11 PM

I know I thought it was about pot to

That this is even a law is ludacris

KWhit · 03-27-2003, 08:12 AM

I'm not a big fan of different laws in different states. In Georgia, I can't even buy beer on Sunday. WTF!?!?

I may have to move.

Ben E Lou · 03-27-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KWhit
I'm not a big fan of different laws in different states. In Georgia, I can't even buy beer on Sunday. WTF!?!

But isn't it always funny on Super Bowl Sunday to see the newcomers go up to the checkout line with booze, and then berate the poor checkout girls, like it is THEIR fault???

03-26-2003, 03:22 PM	#3
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Several thoughts.... 1. Most of y'all know my stance on the immorality of homosexual behavior. however, I don't think it should be against the law. 2. Georgia's sodomy laws were struck down in the last few years. 3. OK. Just thinking about it is gross, but here's what I'm wondering: how long were those boys goin' at it, and was it so loud that it alerted a neighbor??? The, err, "passion" had apparently progressed to the point where whatever was happening was loud enough for a neighbor to know what was going on. This neighbor called the cops. The dispatcher gets in touch with a couple o' boys in blue. They cops arrive, knock in the door, and they're STILL going at it????? I don't even want to think about it any more. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! Last edited by Ben E Lou : 03-26-2003 at 03:27 PM.

03-26-2003, 03:23 PM	#4
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Could be the guy knew they were gay, was spying on them, and called the cops when he thought they were going at it so that they'd get caught. Either way, the caller was an asshat. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

03-26-2003, 04:15 PM	#6
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	What do folks think about states regulating behavior? __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-26-2003, 04:35 PM	#7
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Kind of a broad question. Some behavior should not be regulated by states, some should. In principle the concept is fine, but it must be on a case by case basis and the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that the behavior is damaging to society. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-26-2003, 04:57 PM	#16
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Here here Skydog! __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

03-26-2003, 03:09 PM	#2
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I cannot believe that states still have this law on the books. But to actually ARREST two guys in the privacy of their home is bullshit. Complete discrimination.

03-26-2003, 04:39 PM	#11
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	I think that it is wrong that states DO get to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedroom but DO NOT get to regulate abortions. I would do it exactly the opposite way. I'd let states ban abortions if they want, but not bar sexual acts by consenting adults in the privacy of their residences.

03-26-2003, 05:10 PM	#18
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	I think this may be a problem for the state. "The Texas statute applies only to homosexuals, and the couple contends that violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law." http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030326-124712-8943r __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-26-2003, 05:55 PM	#21
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	I knew that was the wrong answer, but I wasn't sure how else to put it. Not shocking that you were able to spell it out clearly. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-26-2003, 06:02 PM	#23
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Not quite without any representation, but too close for conscience. I understand the politics of the issue make it difficult, but the fact that DC residents get no vote in Congress is beyond embarassing.

03-26-2003, 07:05 PM	#26
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	dola, I respectfully disagree with Quik on DC. Voting representation in congress is limited to states, and it should remain that way. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-26-2003, 07:49 PM	#28
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	Not to threadjack... but does anyone here not think that the lack of DC representation has something to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population is poor and black?

03-26-2003, 07:51 PM	#29
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Well, since it has been like that since inception, no, I don't think it does. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-26-2003, 07:52 PM	#30
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	DC didn't have a million people when it was built.

03-26-2003, 07:54 PM	#31
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Exactly my point. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-26-2003, 09:11 PM	#35
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	DC does not have representation because it is not a state. that is the only reason. Unless they become a state, it would take a amendment to give them representation. I do not know if they meet the requirements for statehood __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-26-2003, 09:26 PM	#39
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	Well, they already have 100, I'm not sure 2 would make a difference. And I really thought this thread would have something to do with Pot. I am saddened.

03-26-2003, 10:11 PM	#40
tucker342 Pro Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Iowa City, IA	I know I thought it was about pot to That this is even a law is ludacris

03-27-2003, 08:12 AM	#41
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I'm not a big fan of different laws in different states. In Georgia, I can't even buy beer on Sunday. WTF!?!? I may have to move.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)