Con: Laws prohibiting same-sex relations are within the rights of state sovereignty.
By J. Douglas Stevens
Assistant Opinions Editor
Two men were jailed overnight for breaking the Homosexual Conduct Law which bans oral and anal sex between people of the same gender in the state of Texas.
The two did not plan to lead a gay rights movement, but their case has sparked a revival of activism among the gay community.
John Lawrence and Tyron Garner served their time, paid their fine and went about their business wanting no more trouble than was already caused them. Their case, meanwhile, has made it all the way to the Supreme Court and is being called the most important privacy case in decades.
Is the law Constitutional? Does it violate the civil rights of homosexuals? Is intolerance of sodomy consistent with the moral fiber of American citizens? Difficult questions posed from a difficult situation.
The police entered Lawrence’s residence in response to a neighbor’s bogus report of an armed intruder.
The officers, very much armed and actually intruding, stumbled upon what Texas law calls deviate sexual intercourse between same-sex couples.
The mock call from the neighbor sounds like some spineless bigot’s attempt at vigilante justice. Too ashamed to report homosexual activity to the police, some nosy and spiteful neighbor probably called the police at the first sign of foreplay. Is it wrong that someone knowingly lied to the police to bring trouble upon another person? Yes.
Is it wrong that Texas law discriminates against homosexuals by prohibiting intercourse between them? Depends on who you ask.
If you’re south of the Mason-Dixon line, the answer will probably be, “No.” Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri have laws that ban oral and anal sex between same-sex couples, while Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Utah and Idaho all have laws that prohibit sodomy for everyone. That is a total of 13 states that have passed legislation against sexual deviance. It’s safe to say that all of the original 13 colonies would have agreed. It’s also safe to say that the five most Western states (Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii and Alaska) would assume a more liberal position.
Universal tolerance is an infant notion that only recently has found a place next to respected ideology. The underlying question to this issue is a moral dilemma and not a legal one. Should homosexuals be allowed to be … gay?
Some states extend all the legal benefits of traditional marriage to homosexual couples, while other states make consummation of that same marriage against the law.
If you get married in Hawaii, you might not want to have your honeymoon in Texas.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should not force Texas to change its sodomy laws. The day lawmakers cannot use morals as basis for legislation is the day this nation falls.
Each state should be able to decide their own laws based on the idea that majority rules.
Potheads know to leave California-grown medicinal marijuana at the Nevada border, as a drug offense in the Silver State will land the recreational user in a cell next to a convicted felon.
Nevada likes every week in the desert to be Red Ribbon Week, and since that’s the law that was passed through democratic process, it must be accepted and obeyed. Texas wants the sex life of its citizens to be on the straight and narrow. Fine.
Conventional wisdom calls homosexual (sexual) activity unnatural and unnecessary, meaning it has no purpose as far as procreation is concerned.
As demonstrated in the actions of our current president, Texas is a state that thrives on conventional wisdom. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior, and apparently so does the Bible belt.
As part of a minority that was used, abused and persecuted by Southern states less than a millennia ago and continues to be legally harassed by law enforcement today, I sympathize with the plight of Lawrence and Garner.
In California, it can be a crime to be driving while black. In Texas, it doesn’t pay to be gay; in fact it costs $200.
But Lawrence and his partner knew the price tag on their male bonding experience before they began, and unless legislation is amended by the Supreme Court, they blatantly broke the law.
Pepperdine justified its sex policy by saying it is consistent with the moral standards of the university; Texas claims similar rationale for its law against sodomy and is completely within its rights to do so.
April 03, 2003