In
a
sweeping
victory
for
gay
rights
advocates,
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
on
Thursday
overturned
sodomy
laws
in
13
states,
including
Virginia,
declaring
that
gay
couples,
as
well
as
heterosexuals,
have
a
constitutional
right
to
privacy
in
the
area
of
“private
sexual
conduct.”
Attorneys
called
the
6-3
decision
in
the
case,
known
as
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
a
stunning
victory
for
the
gay
rights
movement
because
of
the
specific
legal
changes
it
will
bring
about
and
because
of
its
strongly
worded
declaration
on
behalf
of
privacy
rights
for
gays.
“The
state
cannot
demean
their
existence
or
control
their
destiny
by
making
their
private
sexual
conduct
a
crime,”
states
the
majority
opinion,
written
by
Justice
Anthony
M.
Kennedy.
The
case
stems
from
a
decision
by
two
gay
men
from
a
Houston
suburb
to
challenge
the
constitutionality
of
the
Texas
“homosexual
conduct”
law.
The
law
makes
it
a
crime
for
consenting
adults
of
the
same
gender
to
have
oral
or
anal
sex
in
private,
while
allowing
heterosexuals
to
commit
the
same
acts
legally.
The
two
men,
John
Lawrence
and
Tyron
Garner,
were
arrested
by
Harris
County,
Texas,
sheriff’s
deputies
on
Sept.
17,
1998,
after
the
deputies
barged
into
the
bedroom
of
Lawrence’s
apartment
and
observed
the
men
engaging
in
anal
intercourse.
Authorities
said
they
entered
the
apartment
after
receiving
a
call,
which
was
later
found
to
be
false,
that
an
armed
intruder
was
on
the
premises.
Both
men
pleaded
“no
contest”
to
the
charge
and
were
fined
$200
each.
The
plea,
which
has
the
legal
effect
of
a
conviction,
could
have
resulted
in
several
states
adding
their
names
to
police
sex
offender
lists.
"
We
are
very
pleased
with
the
ruling,”
Lawrence
said
at
a
news
conference
Thursday.
“We
never
chose
to
be
public
figures.
This
ruling
allows
us
to
get
on
with
our
lives
and
opens
the
door
for
gay
people
across
the
country
to
be
treated
equally."
Attorneys
affiliated
with
Lambda
Legal
Defense
&
Education
Fund,
which
represented
Lawrence
and
Garner
before
the
Supreme
Court,
argued
that
the
Texas
homosexual
conduct
law
should
be
overturned
on
two
grounds.
One
—
the
ground
that
the
high
court
invoked
in
yesterday’s
decision
—
holds
that
the
law
violates
the
Constitution’s
14th
Amendment
due
process
clause,
which
protects
an
individual’s
privacy
rights.
The
second
ground
contended
that
the
Texas
law
violates
the
14th
Amendment’s
equal
protection
clause
because
it
singled
out
sodomy
committed
by
same-sex
couples
and
not
heterosexual
couples.
Had
the
court
chosen
the
equal
protection
clause,
it
would
have
overturned
only
the
Texas
sodomy
law
and
sodomy
laws
in
three
other
states
—
Kansas,
Missouri
and
Oklahoma,
all
of
which
outlaw
homosexual
sodomy
only.
By
choosing
to
overturn
the
Texas
law
on
the
“privacy”
rights
ground,
the
Supreme
Court
struck
down
sodomy
laws
in
the
four
states
in
which
they
apply
only
to
gays
as
well
as
in
nine
more
states,
where
the
laws
apply
to
both
homosexuals
and
heterosexuals.
The
other
states
include
Alabama,
Florida,
Idaho,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina,
Virginia
and
Utah.
Also
included
in
this
category
is
Puerto
Rico.
Perhaps
most
important,
the
court’s
ruling
overturns
the
court’s
own
1986
decision
known
as
Bowers
v.
Hardwick.
That
decision
upheld
Georgia’s
sodomy
law
on
grounds
that
the
law
did
not
violate
the
Constitution’s
14th
Amendment
assurance
of
privacy
rights.
Gay
rights
activists
viewed
the
Bowers
decision
as
especially
harsh
and
onerous
because
it
couched
its
reasoning
for
rejecting
the
privacy
rights
argument
in
anti-gay
rhetoric.
“To
hold
that
the
act
of
homosexual
sodomy
is
somehow
protected
as
a
fundamental
right
would
be
to
cast
aside
millennia
of
moral
teaching,”
then
Chief
Justice
Warren
Burger
wrote
in
a
concurring
opinion.
“It’s
a
great
victory
for
all
Americans
because
now
all
Americans
are
protected
from
government
intrusion
into
their
bedrooms,”
said
Paul
Smith,
a
gay
Washington
attorney
who
argued
the
case
on
Lambda
Legal's
behalf
before
the
court
in
March.
“They
didn’t
make
the
‘equal
protection’
argument
because
that
argument
didn’t
need
to
be
reached,”
Smith
said.
“They
said
anybody,
gay
or
straight,
has
a
right
to
make
choices
about
their
sexual
partners
and
their
sexual
practices
in
the
privacy
of
their
homes.”
Joining
Kennedy
in
signing
on
to
the
majority
opinion
to
overturn
the
Texas
statute
on
“privacy”
grounds
were
Justices
John
Paul
Stevens,
David
Souter,
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg,
and
Stephen
Breyer.
Justice
Sandra
Day
O'Connor
filed
a
concurring
opinion
that
supported
overturning
the
Texas
law,
but
based
her
opinion
on
the
“equal
protection”
argument.
Justice
Antonin
Scalia
wrote
the
dissenting
opinion,
with
Chief
Justice
William
Rehnquist
and
Justice
Clarence
Thomas
signing
on
to
Scalia’s
dissent.
Thomas
also
filed
a
separate
dissenting
opinion.
In
his
dissent,
Scalia
called
the
majority
opinion
a
loss
of
the
“people’s
right”
to
make
laws
through
their
elected
leaders
that
take
stands
on
“moral”
issues.
“It
is
clear
from
this
that
the
court
has
taken
sides
in
the
cultural
wars,”
Scalia
said,
in
a
statement
he
delivered
from
the
bench,
a
departure
from
usual
practice.
Kennedy
appeared
to
set
the
stage
for
the
majority
opinion
when
he
described
in
his
opinion
the
rational
e
for
the
decision.
“The
present
case
does
not
involve
minors.
It
does
not
involve
persons
who
might
be
injured
or
coerced
or
who
are
situated
in
relationships
where
consent
might
not
be
easily
refused.
It
does
not
involve
public
conduct
or
prostitution…The
case
does
involve
two
adults
who,
with
full
and
mutual
consent
from
each
other,
engaged
in
sexual
practices
common
to
a
homosexual
lifestyle.
The
petitioners
are
entitled
to
respect
for
their
private
lives.
The
State
cannot
demean
their
existence
or
control
their
destiny
by
making
their
private
sexual
conduct
a
crime.”
Texas
officials
argued
that
the
Texas
legislature,
and
other
state
legislatures,
not
the
courts,
should
decide
whether
or
not
to
retain
or
repeal
sodomy
laws.
In
a
21-page
brief,
Harris
County
District
...
Attorneys,
clients in sodomy case ‘thrilled’
