Texas Sodomy Law

[+ glutes]

Did I hear right that Texas will allow hetrosexual sodomy, and sex with animals - but not homosexual sodomy?? With all the war news going on, I just got bits and pieces of the case now being heard by the Supremes. Two gentleman being caught in their own bedroom?? What gives?

[Guest sniper]

Yup, that's the law there. Basically a neighbor got pissed off at them and called the cops. Pompous ass William Buckley, ace reporter, doesn;t do his homeowrk and suggests it was a deliberate test case:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley032803.asp

[VaHawk]

According to Buckley's article there are only 4 states left with anti-sodomy laws: Georgia, Texas, here in Virginia but what is the 4th? At least in Virginia, we don't discriminate, sodomy is against the law period, whether heterosexual or homosexual. God we are indeed the shining light of the nation. After all we gave you Jerry and Pat and the PTL. :-(

[taylorky]

God we are indeed the shining light of the

>nation. After all we gave you Jerry and Pat and the PTL. :-(

>

 

 

LOL don't y'all have that nut/felon ollie north also. and it seems i read something in the review about some of the people of richmond being really upset about president lincolns statue being placed in that (ahem) fair city. oh well it is a pretty state though.......taylor-aka jewbilly @21:43-03/31/03

[Flower]

>Pompous ass William Buckley,

>ace reporter, doesn;t do his homeowrk and suggests it was a

>deliberate test case:

[font color ="green"

]

Why do you say this as if to disparage Buckley? While I don't agree with most of his opinions, I certainly do with the tone of the article as well as his suggestion that it was probably a "test case."

 

He says: "Even if the prosecution was brought on by agents provocateurs furtively setting out to add one more right to the Bill of Rights....." This doesn't necessarily mean that the sodomy itself was set up to make a test case, or the tattle-tale neighbor in on the plot, just that once it presented itself to the prosecution, they decided to see if the SCOTUS would do for Texas what their legislatures lacked the guts to do. Or of course it could always just be that it would have been politically unsound for the prosecutor (elected official) to just flat out dismiss }(

 

Most of these types of cases are selected after a happenstance arrest, however--in fact sometimes a State or advocacy group will wait patiently for years for just the right case to narrow the issues to what they want tested.

 

He even takes a few well deserved swipes at Justice Scalia, someone I have the greatest disdain for and who would be considered "middle of the road" MAYBE in Nazi Germany.

 

But to demonstrate the thinking of Buckley that I disagree with however, he goes on to say "***This affront on the separation of church/state narrowly cost him death through a heart attack, but he recovered; and who should materialize to forward his case? The American Civil Liberties Union, of course, which has since then succeeded in banning the Ten Commandments, along with mangers and Christmas trees, from public property. "

 

Whether Buckley realizes it or not, the ACLU cannot ban anything--it is the SCOTUS which is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the last time I looked, the "10 Commandments", "Christmas tree" and "away in the manger" decisions were all with Republican appointed justices strictly following the Constitution in a manner lacking the insight of their brothers across the isle :+

 

This case, however, will really determine the relevance of the SCOTUS in protecting due process and equal protection for all US citizens--I am hoping for all gays, all citizens, and simply because of my own faith in the system and the SCOTUS that they make the correct decision.

[VaHawk]

Hi taylor, you southern jewbilly (I luv that term). Hey man, got that Greyhound bus ticket to Canada yet? After all, we do have to leave don't we? BTW would you be interested in trading Ollie, Jerry and Pat for Loretta Lynn? But we did give the world Patsy Cline! Yea, bro, the Sons of the Confederacy are having a fit over that statue of Lincoln down in good ole Richmond. Pushy, pushy, pushy, after all there is a statue of Arthur Ashe down there! what more do they want????

[Guest feisty1]

>According to Buckley's article there are only 4 states left

>with anti-sodomy laws: Georgia, Texas, here in Virginia but

>what is the 4th?

 

There are 17 states with anti-sodomy laws; there are only four that prohibit same-sex sodomy only: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Georgia no longer has an anti-sodomy law, it's own state court struck it down in 1998. In Missouri, the State Court of Appeals ruled that the law does not apply to consensual conduct.

 

The ACLU has a handy webpage that breaks down the states according to which still have anti-sodomy laws, which repealed them through legislative action, which were struck down by courts, and where they are currently in dispute. It also gives the penalties -- in Texas, up to a $500 fine; in Oklahoma, up to 10 years in prison.

 

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html#N_3_

 

While your there, you might consider making a donation.

 

--Michael

N.P. "Territorial Pissings" - Nirvana

[Flower]

> taylor-aka jewbilly @21:43-03/31/03

[font color ="green"

]

Ok ok-- I know I should be following more closely but I must have missed it somewhere. So please indulge me :9 Why the AKA and what's it mean? I grew up in an area in Southern California where virtually ALL my friends and classmates were jewish--I was the token GOY, but I've NEVER heard your aka before.

[VaHawk]

Good points, and I think you are right. Lawyers are worse than IT with their acronyms. It took me a few moments to realize that SCOTUS stood for the Supremene Court of the United States, but the whole time I was reading this post I had this image of a sack of balls in my mind.

[Flower]

>but the whole time I was reading this post I

>had this image of a sack of balls in my mind.

[font color="green"

]

LMAO :7 :7 That's funny Hawk--but strange that on this of all sites, SCROTUMS would enter your mind }( Guess it's fortunate that I didn't fit the abbreviation "dock" for docket in there somehow

[Guest jeffOH]

>> taylor-aka jewbilly @21:43-03/31/03

 

Flower

 

taylorky had referred to himself as a 'Jewish hillbilly' (Kentucky) and I just rammed the two words together and called him "Jewbilly" and I guess it stuck.

 

JEFF [email protected]

[taylorky]

LOL one of our posters here........i guess in an attempt to insult me called me a "jewbilly".i know he doesn't like attorneys,the offspring's of attorneys,and now i guess jewish people that live in the south also......hey he's feeble so..........taylorky@23:04-03/31/03

[taylorky]

>Hi taylor, you southern jewbilly (I luv that term). Hey man,

>got that Greyhound bus ticket to Canada yet? After all, we do

>have to leave don't we? BTW would you be interested in

>trading Ollie, Jerry and Pat for Loretta Lynn? But we did give

>the world Patsy Cline! Yea, bro, the Sons of the Confederacy

>are having a fit over that statue of Lincoln down in good ole

>Richmond. Pushy, pushy, pushy, after all there is a statue of

>Arthur Ashe down there! what more do they want????

 

 

 

hey for real a bus to trip to canada sounds like fun,and being the...i was going to say commie pinkos we are .......but hell they don't exist anymore....shit i forgot why we were getting kicked out.oh i remember.........we can think for ourselves............as for pat and the gang.......errrrrrrrrr thanks but ky. has our fair share of bible thumping nuts....you can keep yours.......taylorky@23:13-03/31/03

[Guest jeffOH]

How could it be insulting, you yourself have reminded us that you're a gay, Jewish, hillbilly boy living in KY. I thought it was cute. Nothing more, nothing less, period.

 

JEFF [email protected]

[Flower]

[font color ="green"

] Noticably absent was your denial of disliking attorneys and their offspring.....and Flower had 3 little flowers too (though not too little now x(

[Guest jeffOH]

>Noticeably absent was your denial of disliking attorneys and

>their offspring...

 

I guess I felt like I'd beat it to death in that other thread. I compared my EX (with whom I'd just recently had some drama) to a stereotype of an attorney, that MOST people would immediately understand and not take seriously. Because it wouldn't be much of a stretch for me to see him in that stereotypical role.

 

Of course, and this is one for the therapist, in the past I've been very attracted to intelligent, sexy, arrogant, alpa-males (and this one turned out to be duplicitous, argumentative and a know-it-all). I can overlook ALOT when the sex is that good (although we hadn't dated for a while, we did have sex occasionally and we worked together with clients). We tried to be friends, but that just wasn't meant to be.

 

The Offspring, wasn't that some bad horror movie from the '70's?}(

 

JEFF [email protected]

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

This Is Only A Test

 

Lawyers from all sides of an issue have always looked for a legal case that will help prove their point, from a multi-national corporation wishing to prove it has the right to chop down trees on its property to a parent who believes his child does not need to pledge "under god."

 

The essence of Bowers was that the Chief Justice (Warren Burger) appointed by Richard Nixon wrote an opinion that said homosexual engaging in homosexual activity had no expectation of privacy and no such privacy right was in the constitution for homosexual acts, partly because traditional community and legal standards throughout history had found homosexuals and homosexual behavior abhorrent, immoral and reprehensible, thus fit to be criminalized. Our current Chief Justice (who was appointed by another two-term republican) concurred in that opinion.

 

In Roemer, the Supreme Court decided an equal-protection, not privacy, case. This is the same argument that is being used in this Texas case, because the Texas legislature repealed sodomy laws that targeted heterosexuals but left them in place for homosexuals (and, of course, animals). In other words, it excluded one group of people from the rights enjoyed by the rest. Justice Scalia (who may be elevated to Chief Justice by the President whom he helped install in that office) asked questions indicating that he believes it is perfectly permissible to target a group, to single it out, for moral and other reasons, and that no one was being prevented from enjoying the rights enjoyed by all unconstitutionally (as an example, it is perfectly OK to deny a felon the right to vote, which everyone else enjoys, because he is a felon).

 

Homosexual sex acts are illegal in some states because they are a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis of legalized discrimination. This is the reason why this case is important to all of us.

[+ glutes]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

>>Homosexual sex acts are illegal in some states because they

>are a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis of

>legalized discrimination. This is the reason why this case is

>important to all of us.

 

And that is why I started this thread, this case is VERY important to all of us!

The news report I heard said that Texas didn't want to change the law because it would 'legitimize homosexual marriage'. Really?

If SCOTUS upholds this law it is time to look somewhere else to live for me!!

[trilingual]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

Also, the Texas case was NOT set up as a test case. A hostile neighbor called the cops, falsely telling them he saw a robber enter the plaintiffs' apartment. The cops walked in and found no robber but instead discovered the couple (who are interacial) having sex. The neighbor was prosecuted and convicted for filing a false police report, even though the plaintiffs also got busted for violating the sodomy law.

 

It's always difficult to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case, but the fact that the court accepted the case suggests that they may now be willing to revisit the issue, even if it's under equal protection instead of privacy. Since Bowers, the majority of states have abolished their sodomy laws, either legislatively or judicially, and there has been a significant advance in public opinion about the issue. I'm sure the fact that the Georgia Supreme Court also ruled the local statute that gave rise to Bowers unconstitutional under the state constitution will have some influence on their thinking.

 

Ending sodomy laws across the U.S. will be a huge step forward, so pray for a good decision! It'll have an effect on everything from marriage, to immigration, to military service issues.

[Bilbo]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

Y'all know my memory, but it seems to me that the neighbor who filed the false burglar report was an ex of one of the two arrested. I am not sure that it has ever been said and proved that it was jealousy that provoked him into doing so, but many around here (Houston, where it happened) tend to think so. From looking at the faces of the two arrested, I cannot, as much as I would like to, support the idea that this was done solely to get the sodomy law into court. However, I am glad that such an narrowly defineable case happened.

 

One might also note that on the 3rd of last month, a Texas judge granted a divorce to a gay male couple which had a civil union in Vermont. However, the state attorney general called the judge on it two days before it was to be finalized, pointing out that not only were the two men not married in Texas, nor did the a.g. want such a marriage legalized by such a proceeding, but that they actually weren't even married in Vermont, since there is a difference between the Vermont marriage statue (which evidently defines marriage as heterosexual) and their civil union statute. On the last of the 30 days he had available to do so, the judge reversed himself and nullified his ruling on those grounds.

[+ glutes]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

To paraphrase Mark Morford:

 

"But as we storm into a poor, repressed nation in the name of justice and power and out smirking inarticulate president's born-again God, killing hundrens (soon to be thousands) of Iraqis in the process, it is good to be reminded just sort of values we are, ostensibly, fighting to inflict upon the world."

 

"fucking sheep: legal. fucking gay lover: illegal. Now you know why they call Texas cattle country"

[dick_nyc]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

Isn't it funny that Houston where this took place is probably after Austin the most liberal and gay friendly city in Texas. Yet you are happy to blacken the case as an example of conservative practices and bring it into the war where it does not belong. You have definitely not got a multi-threading mind.

[Guest feisty1]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

>Isn't it funny that Houston where this took place is probably

>after Austin the most liberal and gay friendly city in Texas.

 

Did you read the press accounts of the oral arguments? Here is what I found most interesting, quoting from ABPNews:

 

"In arguing the state’s side of the case, Harris County Prosecutor Charles Rosenthal began by drawing a distinction between homosexual orientation and gay sex acts. "There is nothing on the record to indicate that (the plaintiffs) are homosexuals," Rosenthal said. The statute does not single out people who are homosexual in orientation but merely bans same-sex acts for both gays and people primarily heterosexual in orientation who might occasionally engage in same-sex acts, he said.

 

At a press conference following the hearing, Rosenthal listed as examples of such a hypothetical situation imprisoned individuals who might resort to consensual gay sex or people primarily heterosexual in orientation who may experiment with gay sex in college. "We aren't penalizing [homosexuals'] status. We're only penalizing their particular conduct," Rosenthal said.

 

However, one of the friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the plaintiffs likened this argument to the idea that the law bans both rich people and poor people from sleeping under bridges."

 

So that's what passes for "liberal" and "gay friendly" in Texas? Wow. 'Hey, it's cool to be gay in Texas -- we're real liberal down here. Just don't have sex'! Dahlia Lithwick in Slate called it "Will & Grace" homophobia -- "gays are so cute, but don't show me what they do in bed."

 

Of course, the scariest part of the arguments came when Rhenquist asked Paul Smith, Lawrence & Garner's attorney, if states can have laws preventing homosexuals from teaching kindergarten, Smith said only if it was shown to cause harm, and Scalia chimed in: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."

 

Yes, Antonin Scalia, the man who installed Jr. in the White House, the man whom Jr. has said is the Supreme Court Justice he most admires and on whom he will model his appointees to the Court. The rest of the nation would much appreciate it you would keep this brand of Texan "liberalism" confined to Texas.

 

Michael

N.P. "Alarm Call" - Björk

[+ glutes]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

>Isn't it funny that Houston where this took place is probably

>after Austin the most liberal and gay friendly city in Texas.

>Yet you are happy to blacken the case as an example of

>conservative practices and bring it into the war where it does

>not belong. You have definitely not got a multi-threading

>mind.

 

Well Dick, I 'got' a multi-threading mind.

This whole case revolves around conservatism that is now bordering on fascism. This is why we need to be concerned, even as a gays with a right-wing bent.

Seeing how you live in Queens, how can you judge liberals in Tex-ass?? (I'm sorry fellow Texas 'boarders')

When you have a bunch of of homophobic neighbors and lawmakers and Bible-groping pro-family Taxas zealots who think good sex is a bottle of Jim Beam and 30 seconds with a belt sander, we should be concerned.

Sodomy has meant everything from masturbation in the wrong position to beastiality, save maybe 'the GOP Special', a.k.a. three grunting minutes in the missionary position before a NASCAR race.

If we take this kind of law to Iraq, we're in for a 'real gud reception...

[dick_nyc]

RE: This Is Only A Test

 

I thought our goal was to bring a republican form (as opposed to a democratic form of government which is not what we have - not republican party form of government) to the nation of Iraq but we were not going to tell them how to worship or not worship their god. If we are not going to tell them how to worship their god, then your bible belt neighbors in Texas have no religious input to the government, therefore you point goes out the window. Fascism was a form of socialism and therefore not the proper term for whatever point you are trying to make in your first statement. If you are trying to say that the government is trying to force the people to believe in a certain way, then that is more a liberal point that a conservative point. Liberals are the ones with the PC attitudes for WASP's only. Conservatives were not the ones who shot the man's wife at Ruby Ridge.

As to my Texas credentials, I do have some but not many. I was in Texas for a six month contract before my last contract position living in the Dallas suburb of Addison and working in the Las Colinas area of Dallas. I worked with a group of people who were from all areas of the state of Texas from Corpus Christi to Texarkana to San Antonio to Houston to Round Top to New Braunfels. I also grew up in the middle west and do know something about the bible belt areas.

I only live in Queens because my last job before I retired was on Wall Street in IT. I am in the process of figuring out where I want to live now that I have retired.