Quantcast
About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
.
CHRISTIANITY
Who is a Christian?
Shared beliefs
Handle change
Bible topics
Bible inerrancy
Bible harmony
Interpret Bible
Persons
Beliefs, creeds
Da Vinci code
Revelation, 666
Denominations
.
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Other spirituality
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handle change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
World's end
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality/ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandm'ts
Abortion
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Equal rights - gays & bi's
Gay marriage
Nudism
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

DECRIMINALIZING SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR: PART 4

Reactions to the Lawrence v. Texas decision by the principals, in the media, and in courts

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.


horizontal rule

The Supreme Court ruling & its implications are described in a separate essay

horizontal rule

Overview:

On 2003-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that had banned gay sex, in private between consenting adults. More details. This is a landmark ruling for gay rights activists, because it apparently invalidated existing "sodomy" laws in 13 states. Further, the Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution implies that American adults have the liberty to engage in private sexual behavior without government interference. Thus, the effect of the ruling may well expand beyond gays and lesbians to include a broad range of sexual activities performed by persons of all sexual orientations.

Almost all responses to the court decision neatly fell into two groups:

bulletMany conservative Christian groups -- both Protestant and Roman Catholic immediately criticized the decision as a major threat to heterosexual marriage and to the stability of the rest of society. They frequently cited the minority decision by Justice Scalia.
bulletGay and lesbian positive agencies immediately hailed the decision as a major advance for homosexual rights. They frequently cited the majority decision by Justice Kennedy.

As is customary in such developments, the press seems to have completely ignored the opinions of all mainline Christian groups, liberal Christian groups and groups from other religions. They appear to take the position that the battle over the definition of marriage and over equal rights for gays and lesbians is between conservative Christians, and gay-positive groups.

horizontal rule

Reactions to the court decision by principals in the case:

bulletLawyer Ruth Harlow, of the gay-positive Lambda Legal Defense Fund, who represented the plaintiffs, said: "This is giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals and where that is no longer accepted by the most powerful court in the country." She also said that "The court is just catching up with American society." 1 During another interview, she said that discrimination against gays and lesbians in marriage laws and in the U.S. military would be two of the injustices that would be targeted next. She said: "By knocking out both sodomy laws and the justification of morality, this decision makes it much harder to defend those discriminatory schemes. The actual answer for those issues will be saved for another day." 2
bulletJohn Geddes Lawrence, one of the plaintiffs, said that he and his partner Tyron Garner were happy with the decision. Lawrence said that they "never chose to be public figures or to take on this fight....Not only does this ruling let us get on with our lives, but it opens the door for gay people all over the country to be treated equally." 3
bulletBill Delmore, an assistant district attorney in Harris County, was involved in the appeals of the case. He said: "Obviously I am a little bit disappointed in the outcome because of the amount of work we put into it....But I have a lot more serious criminal offenses in files on my desk than this. It is going to be something of a relief to leave the social implications and philosophy and all that behind, and just focus on putting the bad guys in prison." 4

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

Reactions to the court decision in the media:

bulletAndrew Cohen, a CBS News legal analyst, said that the court "has created a broad new legal rationale for future challenges by gay rights activists...This is a major ruling that will change a lot of other laws down the road." He said that "gays and others" may be able to use the ruling to challenge a wide range of laws on the basis of a right to privacy. 5
bulletNeil Steinberg, Columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times said: "For the past 200 years, the miracle of democratic government has been slowly stuffing religion back into its box. Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on anti-sodomy laws is another step. I don't muse about God much, obviously. But when I do, I can't conceive of Him caring an awful lot about the various practices consenting adults do back in their bedrooms. Awful childhood diseases don't bother Him, apparently. No reaction on the Congo to date. Is he really steamed that Brad and Tim are frolicking? Not only don't I believe it, but I have a hard time believing that anybody believes it." 6
bulletDavid Von Drehle, columnist for the Washington Post wrote: "Lawrence v. Texas could have implications far beyond the closed doors of private homes. In an unexpectedly large step, the court said traditional morality is no justification for making legal distinctions among sexual behaviors of consenting adults. 'The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, quoting approvingly from his colleague Justice John Paul Stevens.

And in at least one earlier precedent, the realm of private, intimate life has been defined by the Supreme Court to include 'marriage . . . family relationships [and] child rearing.' 7

bulletA Washington Post editorial stated that: "Texas defended its law as an effort to enshrine traditional morality, but Justice Kennedy declared that the law 'furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.' Law, the court has said in effect, is meant to regulate crime, not a majoritarian conception of sin. The court's decision represents an enormous breakthrough in the struggle of gay men and lesbians for what the court at long last has learned to call 'respect for their private lives'." 8

horizontal rule

If you would like to praise or condemn Justice Kennedy:

You can write a letter to him at: Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, United States Supreme Court, One First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543. If you wish, you can send us a copy for addition to this web site. We will post it anonymously unless you wish your name to be published.

horizontal rule

References:

  1. Tim Harper, "Sodomy laws struck down: Highest U.S. court says Texas statute unconstitutional. Dissenter warns of legalized marriage for homosexuals," Toronto Star, 2003-JUN-27, Page A3.
  2. "Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling," TownHall.com, 2003-JUN-27, at: http://www.townhall.com/
  3. "Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law," CNN.com Law Center, 2003-JUN-26, at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/
  4. Dean Murphy, "Gays Celebrate, and Plan Campaign for Broader Rights," The New York Times, 2003-JUN-27. at: http://www.nytimes.com/
  5. "High Court Rejects Sodomy Law," CBS News, 2003-JUN-26, at: http://www.cbsnews.com/
  6. Ted Olson & Todd Hertz, "Opinion Roundup: Does Lawrence v. Texas Signal the End of the American Family? Evangelicals may not agree on antisodomy laws, but they're all concerned about what the Supreme Court's decision of them means." Christianity Today, Week of 2003-JUN-30, at: http://www.christianitytoday.com
  7. David Von Drehle, "A Debate on Marriage, And More, Now Looms," Washington Post, 2003-JUN-27, Page A01, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com
  8. "Breakthrough," Washington Post, 2003-JUN-27, Page A28. Online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

horizontal rule

Copyright   2003 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2003-JUN-26
Latest update: 2003-AUG-2
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)


horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the "homosexual laws" menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?


Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.