Editorial: A Walk Down Lovers’ Lane
The state’s high court strikes down sodomy enforcement, but extremely
private personal activities should not be conducted in public places.
Cape Cod Times,
February 25, 2002
319 Main St., Hyannis, MA 02601
Fax: 508-775-7337
Email: letters@capecodonline.com
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/edits/ed25.htm
It’s every pre-school teacher’s nightmare: Leading the flock on a
little walk in the woods and coming upon a couple having sex along the trail.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court affirmed last week that only the
public nature of such an act should interest police—not the gender of the
couple.
Mostly male sex in parks and highway rest areas has long been an occasional
target of police sweeps. The same isn’t true of heterosexuals in
"lovers’ lane." The court ruled, in a case brought by Gay and
Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, that previous rulings protecting private,
consensual sex among adults—and laying out the participants’ duty to stay
out of sight—also extend to acts covered in the state’s antique sodomy
laws.
In effect, the ruling erases one cornerstone legal motivation for police
raids of gay "cruising areas." That’s good, because gay men have
long complained that such raids often seemed to be conducted more for sport
than for public safety.
The executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts
predicts the ruling will only encourage lewd displays of public behavior.
"It means people won’t be able to take their children walking in the
Blue Hills. It means people won’t be able to use rest stops," said C.J.
Doyle.
Insofar as Doyle, by his examples, seems to object only to homosexual
couples, his complaints illustrate precisely the problem the court seeks to
address. Obviously, heterosexual couples should also be enjoined from sex that
might burden or embarrass others in public places. The fact remains, however,
that a certain subset of gay males is still likely to arouse the most public
disdain because of their preference for sex in public places. And that
presence does inhibit use by the majority.
There is still a public interest in keeping sex private, and the law
affirms that. The ruling implies that, instead of policing, the way to keeping
public places free of embarrassing encounters is common courtesy and a
personal sense of public-spiritedness in those who choose to frolic outdoors.
[Home] [Editorials] [Massachusetts]
