• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Court of Public Opinion #4 : Texan Gay Sex Law Overturned

SCOTUS Overturns Texas Gay Sex Law

  • It was good - Get out of my bedroom!

    Votes: 27 81.8%
  • It was bad - Filty homos (sorry homos)

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Dont care, never have

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Other, see my post in this useless thread

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
originally posted by jresta...The fact that the right to gay sex even made it to the supreme court is a testament to how strong state opposition is...
jresta brought it up in the retirement community thread. Discuss
 

SGB

Cyburbian
Messages
3,387
Points
25
Att: Chet!

Planderella said:
Why are the courts so obsessed with other people having sex?
A high & slow pitch, right down the middle. It's all yours!
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
Planderella said:
Why are the courts so obsessed with other people having sex?
Because the legislatures are. They keep on passing stupid laws that the courts have to strike down.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
Why anyone cares what two consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own is beyond me.

Bravo, supreme court (except for the 3 homophobes who dissented)

Scalia's comments were pretty lame:

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and "The court has taken sides in the culture war,"

Wouldn't upholding the ban be taking sides too, Mr. Scalia?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
I am actually open to a discussion on this but...It's not really fantastic or good; it's judicial activism at its worst.

But not because of the case invloved gays....

Read Scalia's dissent, not just sound bites produced by agenda driven media.

Its actually quite thoughtful.

His point is his concern that the court has lept (or is is leaped) into what he calls the "culture wars" when it really ought to be above the fray. Culture and Morality is best served by legislative action.

These things should be legislated and I think the Court has acted, in a sense as a super legislature.

Gay marriage is now legal everywhere and gay adoption is legal everywhere, some might say because of this ruling. And I don't think the Constitution intended an absolute right to any of those things.

What about the "don't ask don't tell " military policy?


My only point here again is that I think the Court over stepped its bounds.

Hell if the people of Texas think it is a stupid law, and maybe it is a stupid law, they should vote for people who wil change it.

The second major point is this right to privacy slippery slope. Read the Constitution, there is no statement of an absolute right, thought I agree it may be inferred, in part.

What if instead of having sex, two folks were mainlining cocaine? Is that protected? You see my point.

And I guess the State's right thing is an issue.

Sorry, but people do not have to accept the gay life style as equivalent to their own. I don't particularly adhere to that sentiment but tell me why can't the state of texas pass such a law?
 

mezcal323

Member
Messages
4
Points
0
my life, my choice

I dont believe that any government has the right to tell me whom I can/can not love and what I can/can not do with the one life Im granted ...

this isnt "cultural" these are basic human rights, not privileges ... the essence of being american - the right to speak/worship/think however we choose ... why is the right to love such a radical leap for some to understand?

I dont see any overstepping of boundaries becoz I dont think this shouldve been addressed by law in the first place ... I see this as the "righting" of a wrong ...
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
gkmo62u said:
His point is his concern that the court has lept (or is is leaped) into what he calls the "culture wars" when it really ought to be above the fray. Culture and Morality is best served by legislative action.
My point was had they said that the Texas law was valid, they would have lept into the culture wars too. The Supreme Court would have basically said that homosexual activity was illegal, making criminals out of an estimated 10 percent of the population.

Gay marriage is now legal everywhere and gay adoption is legal everywhere, some might say because of this ruling. And I don't think the Constitution intended an absolute right to any of those things.
Does the constitution gaurantee the right of heterosexual marriage? I don't recall hearing about that in any constitutional law class. Althogh I disagree that this legalizes gay marriage, what is wrong with gay marriage? If two people want to make a commitment to each other, why do so many people have a problem with it? With the exception of spousal benefits, why would anybody get so worked up about two gay people getting married? Same with adoption. If a gay couple can provide a loving home to a child, what's the big deal?

What if instead of having sex, two folks were mainlining cocaine? Is that protected? You see my point.
Cocaine is illegal because it is a dangerous drug. There is legislation against cocaine use to protect the public. The only rationale for legislation against homosexual activities is to demonize a group of people because people disagree with who they fall in love (or lust) with.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,342
Points
31
Ironic Texas Policy

Texas legislators are mostly in favor of small government and personal freedom. That is why I am baffled that we even have laws like this in Texas. They want to encourage personal freedom, especially in regard to property rights, yet they legislate in the bedroom??? They've let their morals dictate policy.

This is the main problem with legislating morals. I think that legislators need to use the same thought process as planners. They need to ask themselves how the law contributes to improving health, safety and welfare (and environment, but that's not really applicable in Texas). Bedroom legislation doesn't pass that test.

I believe this ruling does delve into the realm of judicial activism as it pertains to "right to privacy". The people should be responsible for forcing legislators to change the policy. In this case though, the Supreme Court made the right decision. I believe in the implied right to privacy, and I believe this Texas law violates that right. I don't think Texans would have pushed for a change in this legislation themselves. One purpose of the judicial system is to protect the minority from the majority faction.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
I agree with gkmo62u.

Stupid Texas law.

Bad SCOTUS decision.

The job of the SCOTUS is not to strike down stupid laws. Their job is to strike down unconstitutional laws. Stupid as I think the law is, it is up to the citizens of Texas to decide whether or not to keep it, through their elected officials. Since this "right" is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the states reserve the right to devise legislation that covers it.

It reminds me of the story of an exchange between Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes when Holmes was appointed to the court. Hand told Holmes, "Do justice, sir, do justice." Holmes responded, "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law."
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Private activities should not be a matter of the state, when it is between consenting adults (so no pedos here). The state can't force anybody to not do something that is consensed between two adults... So it's ok that they overturned that law. Here in Chile we also had heated discussions about the same type of law (the decriminalization of sodomy, between two consenting adults) and finnaly it was decriminalized.
 

LouisvilleSlugger

Cyburbian
Messages
216
Points
9
SkeLeton said:
Private activities should not be a matter of the state, when it is between consenting adults (so no pedos here). The state can't force anybody to not do something that is consensed between two adults...
right on!!!! I couldn't agree more on what you said....
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
I agree with those who don't want the SCOTUS making "legislative" decisions. Also that it's a stupid law. But, hey, it's Texas.

One thing nice about states rights is that you can move out of a state (like Texas) if you don't like their basic governmental direction.

When the Supreme Court starts to legislate, it opens the door to Federal intrusion. If they had supported Texas, there would be the potential for federal legislation on this and other similar matters. (Note home state of President and unanimous Republican support on virtually all issues proposed by the Pres.)
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
24
Cheers to all of you who supported this just decision. It would be absolutely despicable if hateful laws like the Texas one were to be allowed to continue.

What is freedom or liberty in this country if we're not allowed the fundamental human desire to love and to sexually express love, in a private setting, within a consensual adult relationship?
 
Last edited:

prudence

Cyburbian
Messages
688
Points
20
Greenescapist said:
Cheers to all of you who supported this just decision. It would be absolutely despicable if hateful laws like the Texas one were to be allowed to continue.

What is freedom or liberty in this country if we're not allowed the fundamental human desire to love and express to sexually express love, in a private setting, in a consensual adult relationship?
Isn't it the responsibility of the residents of Texas to decide which laws generally govern them?

What if consenting adults are engaged in asphyxiation during intercouse and one dies? Should the survivor be exonerated because the act was consensual?

If you believe there is no fault, lets take it a step further...One adult asks another adult to kill him? Is that OK...after all, they are consenting...

Where does it end? The point certain individuals were trying to make is that it is NOT the role of the Courts.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
prudence said:
What if consenting adults are engaged in asphyxiation during intercouse and one dies? Should the survivor be exonerated because the act was consensual?
That actually just happened a few months ago (I thik in Green Bay) and the guy wasn't even charged.
 

Greenescapist

Cyburbian
Messages
1,169
Points
24
prudence said:
Isn't it the responsibility of the residents of Texas to decide which laws generally govern them?
Yes, however, as shown in this case, sometimes legislatures adopt laws that violate the US Constitution. The Constitution trumps state law. This isn't the first time the court has ruled in favor of privacy relating to sexual activity. Griswold v. CT established it in 1963, I believe.

prudence said:
What if consenting adults are engaged in asphyxiation during intercouse and one dies? Should the survivor be exonerated because the act was consensual?
No, that' s different and could potentially be murder.

prudence said:
If you believe there is no fault, lets take it a step further...One adult asks another adult to kill him? Is that OK...after all, they are consenting...
prudence said:
Where does it end? The point certain individuals were trying to make is that it is NOT the role of the Courts.
I do agree with you and think it's rightfully the responsibility of the legislatures to enact laws and occassionally overturn them. However, the system of checks and balances allows for judicial review of laws and from time to time, acts of Congress or a state legislature merit reversal. I know that you do not agree with me, but I think it was rightfully done this time.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
Greenescapist said:
I do agree with you and think it's rightfully the responsibility of the legislatures to enact laws and occassionally overturn them. However, the system of checks and balances allows for judicial review of laws and from time to time, acts of Congress or a state legislature merit reversal. I know that you do not agree with me, but I think it was rightfully done this time.
This pretty well sums up my position as well.

It did not take long, but it now looks as though there is a movement by some of the worst ultra-right morons to seek a constitutional amendment aginst it. Are these people serious? Doesn't this country have more pressing issues to deal with than something two people do behind closed doors, without harming themselves or anyone else?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Micheal:

I think the Constitutional Amendment thing is not or real. I think you might hear a lot of rattling about about it, but, in th end bringing the issue to the fore may be a nice political move on behalf of republicans.

I see it this way. I am only offering thoughts on the Political issue. That is all...

All of the democratic candidates are going to be asked on Tim Russert or by George Stephan.....whether they support the ruling in Lawrence or not. This might in some cases help to alienate the liberal base or the moderate wing of the democratic party during the primary season.

My point is that it will be difficult for the likes of Dean and Kerry et al to oppose the SCOTUS ruling if they want the liberal base, who determine the keys to victory in the primary to support them.

Our little forum here is not representative of the populace,lest we forget.

In the general election, points can be lost among moderate democrats if their candidate was out front on the issue.

for the republicans, its less of a big deal i think because by and large their base and the moderate wing don't love this decision. And they can get away from the xtremist claim by saying they don'y support the scotus decision but they also don't support a con. amendment outlawing certain gays rights.

thoughts?
 
Top