Correct me if I'm wrong...
Apr. 8th, 2003 02:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockI'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, but is there a passage or amendment in the Constitution that actually spells out that heterosexual sex is a protected right in this country. I don't think there is, but, it certainly makes the following argument kind of hard to swallow:
Backers of the Texas law assert there is no fundamental right in the Constitution to engage in certain sexual activity. To strike down the law, they say, could create such a right and lay the legal groundwork for recognition of same-sex marriages.
It's from the following article:
"Homosexual Conduct" and the Court:
An overzealous pair of Houston policemen, who arrested two adult men engaged in consensual sex in a private residence, have set the stage for the most important court decision on the rights of gay and lesbian Americans in a generation.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Lambda Legal's case challenging the constitutionality of Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes oral and anal sex by consenting gay couples.
But does the following argument hold water?
Or the court can issue a much broader ruling, declaring American bedrooms to be protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy and off limits to state scrutiny. Such a decision would invalidate all 13 sodomy laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.
I certainly like to think so, I mean that'd be my interpretation. Guess we'll have to wait until June to find out, though. And it would be so nice if the writers of the article had included bisexuals as well as gays and lesbians as being effected by this decision. Ah well, why quibble, right?
Backers of the Texas law assert there is no fundamental right in the Constitution to engage in certain sexual activity. To strike down the law, they say, could create such a right and lay the legal groundwork for recognition of same-sex marriages.
It's from the following article:
"Homosexual Conduct" and the Court:
An overzealous pair of Houston policemen, who arrested two adult men engaged in consensual sex in a private residence, have set the stage for the most important court decision on the rights of gay and lesbian Americans in a generation.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Lambda Legal's case challenging the constitutionality of Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes oral and anal sex by consenting gay couples.
But does the following argument hold water?
Or the court can issue a much broader ruling, declaring American bedrooms to be protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy and off limits to state scrutiny. Such a decision would invalidate all 13 sodomy laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.
I certainly like to think so, I mean that'd be my interpretation. Guess we'll have to wait until June to find out, though. And it would be so nice if the writers of the article had included bisexuals as well as gays and lesbians as being effected by this decision. Ah well, why quibble, right?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-08 06:00 pm (UTC)We're not a _real_ orientation, see. We're just confused. *smirk*
I'm with you on this one, quibbling or no.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-08 10:37 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-04-09 08:22 am (UTC)"Bisexuality, we're not confused, just broad minded."
"Bisexuality, sorry mom, it's not just a phase."
"Bisexuality, the forgotten orientation."
"Bisexuality, we are not sexual predators who'll sleep with anything...we're just played that way on t.v."
"Bisexuality, it's what's for dinner."
Re:
Date: 2003-04-09 08:19 am (UTC)I'm with you on this one, quibbling or no.
Well my mom still considers it a "phase"...*G*