Supeme Court overturns ban on gay sex

[Guest 7Zach]

Drudgereport.com

overturns Texas case; finally.

[LovesYng]

About "TIME". This only took how long to go thur the courts.

 

 

When in doubt I whip it out:+

[Guest fukamarine]

>About "TIME". This only took how long to go thur the courts.

 

And Bush must be frothing at the mouth!

 

fukamarine

[+ deej]

>And Bush must be frothing at the mouth!

 

And this would be new? :+

[eastbayguy]

While the lawyers among us may have a different spin, the privacy right aspects of this case are probably more important. If I interpret this correctly (I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV) the privacy aspect of the case seem like the real breakthrough. This would appear to set the stage for support from the Supremes for the right to be gay and be left alone legally. In other words, any form of gay discrimination is not OK.

 

Thank you Supremes!

 

The vote was 6 to 3, have not read who was on which side.

 

--EBG

[Guest Jocoluver]

hardly necessary to read who opposed: the usual 3, with scalia taking unusual step of reading his dissent from bench. Scalia, the dummy's ideal judge. who accused the court of entering into cultural war and supporting the homosexual agenda.x(

[Boston Guy]

This is a blockbuster case for gay rights. The case has several major implications for gay men and women, not least of which is that the Court has held that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects private sexual relations between consenting adults.

 

In the latest thread about gay marriage, we discussed for a bit whether the actions of other countries (Canada, specifically, but also the EU and other nations generally) would influence US courts, including the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is currently deciding on the legality of the current state laws banning gay marriage. The US Supreme Court's decision in the sodomy case makes it clear that it believes that such consideration of legal actions in other nations is worthy of consideration, at least in some cases:

 

"Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."

 

 

Some other noteworthy parts of the Court's decision:

 

"For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement—“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy . . . ,” 478 U. S., at 190—discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons."

 

"Bowers’s rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to pro-duce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life."

 

We should all be celebrating today.

 

Congratulations to you all,

BG

[Boston Guy]

Another interesting potential impact of this decision -- Legal analyst Kendall Coffee has said this about it:

 

"This means that for morality to be used as a basis to discriminate against a group that the legislature disfavors for some reason, there needs to be more than invoking the name of morality. You have to show some legitimate purpose, some societal harm that is implicated by the conduct that the state is seeking to outlaw."

 

If so, that could end up having more far-reaching impact than the main decision itself.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

I just, finally, found access to the main opinion itself. Some of what it contains is, frankly, what we hoped for when the Court considered Bowers. But the breadth and sweep of some what is said here is, for me, entirely remarkable.

 

A day to celebrate, indeed.

BG

 

ps to Tampa Yankee: see note to you below.

---

From the Court's decision:

 

"The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals."

 

"This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice."

 

...

 

 

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992)."

 

"Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion for the Court in Bowers and further explained his views as follows: "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards." 478 U. S., at 196. As with Justice White's assumptions about history, scholarship casts some doubt on the sweeping nature of the statement by Chief Justice Burger as it pertains to private homosexual conduct between consenting adults. See, e.g., Eskridge, Hardwick and Historiography, 1999 U. Ill. L. Rev. 631, 656. In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. "[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry." County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 857 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring)."

 

...

 

"The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, §1."

 

"Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization."

 

...

 

"As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants."

 

"Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

 

"The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of their criminal convictions. ... Furthermore, the Texas criminal conviction carries with it the other collateral consequences always following a conviction, such as notations on job application forms, to mention but one example."

 

...

 

"The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent"

 

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

 

...

 

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

 

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

 

---

From Scalia's dissenting opinion:

 

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." 478 U. S., at 196.2"

 

"What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails."

 

...

 

"The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of "liberty," so long as "due process of law" is provided:

 

"No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Amdt. 14 (emphasis added)."

 

"Our opinions applying the doctrine known as "substantive due process" hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called "heightened scrutiny" protection--that is, rights which are " 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' " ibid. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 303 (1993) (fundamental liberty interests must be "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental"

 

...

 

"The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196--the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "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," ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review."

 

...

 

"...No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers--society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U. S., at 196. This is the same justification that supports many other laws regulating sexual behavior that make a distinction based upon the identity of the partner-- for example, laws against adultery, fornication, and adult incest, and laws refusing to recognize homosexual marriage."

 

...

 

"This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O'Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas's interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: "preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society." In the jurisprudence Justice O'Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as "preserving the traditions of society" (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as "expressing moral disapproval" (bad)."

 

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653."

 

"One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress..."

 

 

And then this blockbuster... (aside to TY: note the reference to the Canadian decision)

 

"The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion--after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence--the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so."

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Glass Half-full Twice Over

 

>And then this blockbuster... (aside to TY: note the

>reference to the Canadian decision)

>

>"The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom

>of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition

>of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in

>a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to

>appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct.

>App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead,

>Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its

>opinion--after having laid waste the foundations of our

>rational-basis jurisprudence--the Court says that the present

>case "does not involve whether the government must give formal

>recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek

>to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it.

 

BG,

 

It seems that the glass is filled to the brim with the potential for signficiant overflow down the road. Also, I concede that your response to my post in the earlier thread left me feeling that, on some points, I was solidly ensconced on shaky ground . Even so, I still found it difficult to believe that our Supreme Court would use the Canadian decision as one precedent for overturning Bower. I have not read the decision beyond what you have posted here so I may be in error below.

 

While I believe that the Canadian decision might have provided additional motivation for those justices already inclined to vote to overturn I'm still not convinced that it changed any minds -- maybe OConnor?. From what I read here, the only mention of the Canadian court ruling was used in the dissenting opinion as a rationale for pointing out the view of a flaw in the supporting position. I known that general comments on the change in the last two decades in social views and laws in other countries was mentioned but nothing specific regarding cases cited.

 

What is interesting now is the impact on the Mass SJC. On the one hand this could throw the door open for a postive ruling on gay marriage. On the other, with the mealy-mouth soft-pedaling of the majority regarding the impact (or lack) of todays ruling on gay marriage, and with the nay saying of the dissenting opinion, it will be interesting how this decision unfolds. Overall, it was a good day and can only help the Mass case. Whether it helps enough remains to be seen.

 

There's not too much more for me to say or that I want to say given the good news of today. Whatever swayed the minds of six and when is of little importance now.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Glass Half-full Twice Over

 

Even so, I still found it difficult to

>believe that our Supreme Court would use the Canadian decision

>as one precedent for overturning Bower. I have not read the

>decision beyond what you have posted here so I may be in error

>below.

>

 

No, you're not in error and I agree that they probably didn't use it as precedent. However, it's clear that they were very aware of it and it does seem that the majority used other nations' legal decisions as one basis for their decision, as a counter to those who argue that "millennia of legal tradition dictates...".

 

 

>While I believe that the Canadian decision might have provided

>additional motivation for those justices already inclined to

>vote to overturn I'm still not convinced that it changed any

>minds -- maybe OConnor?.

 

Who knows? Reading Supreme Court tea leaves is an honorable tradition but one never knows. I think you're probably correct that external (meaning non-US) decisions were probably not deciding. However, with the majority, at least, the opinion gives credence to the idea that the justices are keeping an open eye on what is happening elsewhere, especially at the European Court of Human Rights.

 

 

>From what I read here, the only

>mention of the Canadian court ruling was used in the

>dissenting opinion as a rationale for pointing out the view of

>a flaw in the supporting position. I known that general

>comments on the change in the last two decades in social views

>and laws in other countries was mentioned but nothing specific

>regarding cases cited.

>

>What is interesting now is the impact on the Mass SJC. On the

>one hand this could throw the door open for a postive ruling

>on gay marriage. On the other, with the mealy-mouth

>soft-pedaling of the majority regarding the impact (or lack)

>of todays ruling on gay marriage, and with the nay saying of

>the dissenting opinion, it will be interesting how this

>decision unfolds. Overall, it was a good day and can only

>help the Mass case. Whether it helps enough remains to be

>seen.

>

 

Yes, indeed. Between this decision to the south and the Canadian one to the north, one would think that honorable justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts would be having their heads spin right about now...

 

 

>There's not too much more for me to say or that I want to say

>given the good news of today. Whatever swayed the minds of six

>and when is of little importance now.

>

 

Good news, indeed.

 

You're a good man and a fair one.

 

BG

[Guest fukamarine]

>>And Bush must be frothing at the mouth!

>

>And this would be new? :+

 

Not to mention that Asscroft was last seen jumping off a bridge over the Potomac!

 

fukamarine

[curious2000]

YEEEEE HAAAAAWWWW! They "overturn"'em BIG in texas!!! It's finally legal to "ride 'em cowboy"!!! :7

[trilingual]

Well, my prediction was wrong. I thought the Supremes might try to side-step Bowers and decide the case on strict Equal Protection grounds. What they did instead is actually kind of mind-blowing, starting with their frank statement that Bowers was and is wrong and that's why they've decided to overturn it. Besides striking down ALL of the remaining sodomy laws, based on the right of privacy, the decision strongly reinforces the entire concept of a right of privacy, which isn't found in the Constitution explicitly but is the product of judicial interpretation of the Constitution. This means that Roe v. Wade, which was also based on the right of privacy, may now rest on stronger foundations.

 

The decision is notable in so many ways, but it's impressive that it explicity acknowledges both the jurisprudence in the European Community and in Canada. While foreign decisions cannot be precedential in U.S. courts, the courts aren't deaf and blind to events outside their walls or even the boundaries of the U.S. The tide has turned in our favor in the Western democracies, and the Court doesn't want to be left in the backwater of history. Given the nature of our society and political culture, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely wants to be on the leading edge of social change. But that doesn't mean it wants to deliberately march in the opposite direction in opposition to the rest of society and of Western civilization.

 

Scalia's frothing is interesting and prescient in many ways. Not that he's any friend of ours, but much of what he predicts as the consequences of this decision is dead on. This decision WILL be a building block for other steps repealing some of the repressive and moralizing laws left over from other eras, and it does open the way to gay marriage, because the states will be hard put to argue any compelling state interest in opposition to the desires of consenting adults to enter into what is essentially a private agreement. This is especially true considering some of the sweeping language quoted from the majority decision.

 

In otherwise bleak times, this is a cause for celebration indeed! If there isn't an outpouring of joy and celebration at this Sunday's Gay Pride events I can't imagine what else it would take to get everyone out into the streets, because folks, what we're reading here are the excerpts from our very own Emancipation Proclamation. As of today, we are no longer legal pariahs in the United States of America!

 

There is a traditional Jewish prayer for times such as this: Blessed are You, Almighty G-d, Ruler of the Universe, who has kept us and protected us and permitted us to reach this occasion. I never expected to see this in my lifetime, especially not after Bowers, so I have to thank G-d for letting me, and so many millions of others, reach this hopeful moment.

[Boston Guy]

Most important legal decision for gay people ever

 

One more note: I just saw a report in the LA Times. UCLA Law Professor William B. Rubenstein, an expert in gay rights law, described the ruling as "a monumental decision. It is the most important legal decision ever for gay people in the United States."

 

Unbelievable... and with four Republican appointees, too.

 

BG

[AaronScottDC]

>In otherwise bleak times, this is a cause for celebration

>indeed! If there isn't an outpouring of joy and celebration

>at this Sunday's Gay Pride events I can't imagine what else it

>would take to get everyone out into the streets, because

>folks, what we're reading here are the excerpts from our very

>own Emancipation Proclamation. As of today, we are no longer

>legal pariahs in the United States of America!

 

Celebrations are indeed occuring this evening here in the Nation's Capital! The boys were out in droves all around Dupont Circle tonight celebrating the wonderful news. It was like Gay Pride weekend all over again here in DC. We already had our Gay Pride parade and other events a couple of weeks ago, but the partying tonight was even better! Yea us!! :-)

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[axebahia]

Jackhammmer, there's hope for you. I just saw a picture of the two appellants. There is a great age/beauty disparity. Does anyone know if the younger guy was an escort?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Most important legal decision for gay people ever

 

>Unbelievable... and with four Republican appointees, too.

 

This is getting into the realm of politics, which may move this thread to a different forum where far fewer people will view it, an unfortunate occurrence. However, to point out a simple fact: President Nixon, Ford and even for one of Reagan's appointee, there was not a judicial litmus test as there is now, nor the need to find judges for the appellate level who at first blush appear sufficiently innocent and impartial enough through the absence of a legal record to be on the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, it was also the fact the Justice Stevens and some of the Nixon appointees turned out the way that did that caused some to request and require such a litmus test.

 

As for the decision today, yes, it certainly is cause for celebration and it is certainly significant in the deference the court decided to reflect towards prevailing opinions on morality in other nations and jurisdications. There may be hope for this nation yet.

[Rick Munroe]

I'm doing my part and having as much gay sex as possible. The rains have stopped in New York and I've discovered that blistering heat makes me as horny as torrential downpours. }(

[Steven_Draker]

New York Times, June 30th

 

"Gay Pride Parades Celebrate Court Ruling

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

 

Filed at 8:54 a.m. ET

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Topless lesbian motorcyclists and men dressed as Brazilian carnival queens marched in gay pride parades across the country, an annual celebration made all the more joyous this year by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling striking down laws against sodomy.

 

``It's a critically important step toward bringing full dignity and rights to gay people,'' said Ana Oliveira, executive director of Gay Men's Health Crisis, marching with her AIDS prevention group. For many revelers, the high court's 6-3 decision last week raised hope for other advances for gays, including the right to gay marriage.

 

One couple from Houston, in New York for the Manhattan parade, wore pink stickers with the slogan ``My bedroom, my business'' on their shirts.

 

``It's incredible for us because now we're legal,'' said Randy Roll, a lawyer, accompanied by his partner, Damon Crenshaw. ``There was always the fear that you would break the law if you had sex with your partner.''

 

However, in an appearance Sunday on ABC's ``This Week,'' Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., criticized the sodomy decision and endorsed a proposed constitutional ban on homosexual unions.

 

``I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between -- what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined -- as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment.''

 

Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon.

 

Despite the politics, pure fun still abounded at the parades.

 

Some male spectators wore multicolored leis and long strings of faux pearls as they cheered floats. A woman smiled as she waved a modified U.S. flag, its red and white stripes replaced by colors of the rainbow, symbolic of the gay rights movement.

 

In Atlanta, Seattle, San Francisco and elsewhere, revelers marched, danced and carried banners congratulating the Supreme Court and waving rainbow flags. As in years past, the lesbian motorcycle group Dykes on Bikes got the San Francisco parade off to a roaring start.

 

``It's a big party,'' said Jeffrey Sykes, 37, who has attended at least 10 Gay Pride parades in San Francisco. ``It's a chance to let it all hang out and celebrate who we are.''

 

The parade's theme was ``You Gotta Give Them Hope,'' a campaign slogan that belonged to San Francisco's first openly gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone 25 years ago this November.

 

The SF Pride Committee also used the occasion to encourage people to lobby the state Senate to vote for pending legislation that would grant gay couples most of the same legal and financial benefits as married heterosexuals.

 

As they basked in the Supreme Court decision, many participants said they looked forward to a new era of equality and respect.

 

``We're all together, one family,'' said Armando Gonzalez, 21, of Issaquah, Wash., who took part in Seattle's parade as a member of a youth choir made up of gay and straight singers.

 

Small pockets of anti-gay protesters -- some holding rosary beads and praying -- stood behind police barricades along the New York parade route.

 

Parade participants cheered and shook their fists them. And Gay Pride parade organizers said a feeling of hope would carry over to this weekend's marches and celebrations.

 

Chicago's parade drew between up to 400,000 people, according to parade coordinator Richard Pfeiffer. Organizers of the Atlanta Pride Festival, now in its 33rd year, said they expected a crowd of 300,000, the largest in the parade's history. The Supreme Court ruling was cited as a factor in the big turnout.

 

``You couldn't ask for a better reason to come out and celebrate,'' said Philip Rafshoon, owner of Outwrite Bookstore in Atlanta's traditionally gay Midtown neighborhood. ``A lot of people think (gay sex is) immoral. And, unfortunately for them, it's not illegal anymore.'' "

 

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Pride-Parade.html

[Guest Bitchboy]

At the risk of really making this too political, if you check in the MSS forums P&R forum, you will actually see a few idiots arguing against the courts ruling. Warning, they like to use big words over there, even though the rightwingers are not comfortably familiar with their definitions. It takes a village to disembowel a victory.

[trilingual]

So Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wants to support an anti-marriage amendment to the Consititution? Are we surprised there's already a bit of a backlash? Of course, his remarks on the subject were possibly among the least cogent and coherent heard on the public podium since, oh, the last speech by his Führer, the Shrub-oid one. He clearly doesn't "get" the decision: the highest legal authority in the land just said that Western civilization's views on gay sexuality are changing, so they're not immutable as he seems to believe. He also said something ugly about enshrining the right to criminal behavior in the nation's bedrooms. Uh, Bill? The court just DE-criminalized all such behavior, including yours if you ever got a blow job from your wife in one of the Southern states!!!

 

Fortunately, the odds of a constitutional amendment passing are bleak. It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, following which the amendment has to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Unless we're remarkably lethargic and stupid, it should be possible to prevent such an ugly thing from ever becoming part of the Constitution.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>

>Fortunately, the odds of a constitutional amendment passing

>are bleak. It takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress,

>following which the amendment has to be approved by 3/4 of the

>state legislatures. Unless we're remarkably lethargic and

>stupid, it should be possible to prevent such an ugly thing

>from ever becoming part of the Constitution.

>

 

Well, unfortunately there seems to be a lot of lethargy and stupidity around, so I would never take this for granted. As to whether it is feasible, anytime we mess with that Christian right wing mentality we're in for a fight. Those fuckers are bigtime crusaders and they will do all they can to stop us.

}(