Court Hears New Test of Bans on Homosexual Sex
Associated Press, March 26,
By Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON—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should reverse course and strike down a ban on homosexual sex as outdated,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
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 H.
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 scarce 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
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.
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
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.
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
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
“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
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.
[Home] [News] [Lawrence