To Right a Wrong
  St. Petersburg Times,
  December 16, 2002
  P. O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731
  Fax: 727-893-8675
  Email: letters@sptimes.com
  http://www.sptimes.com/2002/12/16/Opinion/To_right_a_wrong.shtml
  The U.S. Supreme Court should right the wrong decision it made in 1986 when
  it upheld a state anti-sodomy law and keep the government out of the bedrooms
  of consenting adults.
  Bowers vs. Hardwick is among a
  handful of decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that will be
  remembered as a product of the prejudices of the time. The 1986 ruling upheld
  the conviction of a gay couple under a Georgia antisodomy law, and rejected
  the idea that the government should not dictate what occurs between consenting
  adults in the privacy of their bedroom. On Dec. 2, the high court announced it
  will revisit Hardwick, offering the justices a chance to right a wrong.
  The disturbing ruling should be relegated to the dustbin of Supreme Court
  mistakes alongside the 1857 decision in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, the
  court’s defense of slavery, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, the 1896
  decision approving the racist doctrine of separate but equal.
  The case that will be heard this term involves Houston residents John
  Lawrence and Tyron Garner who were arrested in 1998 under a Texas statute
  prohibiting "homosexual conduct." Sheriff’s deputies had been
  called to Lawrence’s apartment after a neighbor filed a false report of a
  domestic disturbance. The men were found engaging in sex and were later
  convicted of a misdemeanor and each fined $200. On appeal, a panel of the
  state appellate court initially set aside their conviction, but when the court
  sat en banc, as a full court, the conviction was reinstated on the grounds
  that preserving public morals was an appropriate realm for legislative action.
  The Texas high court then refused to hear the matter.
  By taking Lawrence’s and Garner’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court has
  agreed to consider whether the Texas statute violates the Constitution’s
  protection of liberty and privacy by dictating limits on sexual intimacy, and
  whether the statute violates the right to equal protection of law by treating
  the same acts performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals differently.
  The equal protection argument may be the easier of the two to make, but
  both grounds should prevail. Our package of individual rights should protect
  us both from the government targeting unpopular groups with punitive laws, and
  from the government criminalizing sexual practices between consenting adults.
  The Texas law is clearly susceptible to an equal protection claim, since it
  applies only to homosexual sodomy and not to the same acts performed by
  heterosexual couples. In a 1996 case, the U.S. Supreme Court already
  telegraphed its disapproval of states using the law to discriminate against
  gays. But resting a reversal of Lawrence’s and Garner’s conviction on
  equal protection alone would be less than satisfying. There are 13 states that
  criminalize sodomy between consenting adults, including Florida, but only four
  of those apply solely to homosexual conduct. A Texas legislature intent on
  keeping same-sex couples from intimate relations could merely modify its law
  to include heterosexuals.
  Though rarely enforced, when sodomy charges are filed they are primarily
  used to punish homosexuals. The presence of these laws on state statute books
  gives bigots an excuse to delegitimize the millions of same-sex families in
  this country. State officials have used them to justify discrimination against
  gays and lesbians in employment, government benefits and housing.
  If our constitutional right to privacy means anything, it means we have a
  right to keep the government out of our bedrooms. It is about time the Supreme
  Court clarifies this right once and for all.
  An interesting postscript to the Hardwick case is that Michael
  Bowers, Georgia’s former attorney general who took the case to the Supreme
  Court after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the sodomy
  law violated the right to privacy, later had a 15-year adulterous affair
  exposed when he ran for governor. His mistress told the press, "As far as
  sodomy is concerned, Mike Bowers is a hypocrite."
  
  [Home] [Editorials] [Lawrence
  v. Texas]