# Conservative dopers vs. gay sex decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786 "2003-06-27T16:19:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/121 "2003-07-02T20:05:06Z")
> [@](#): > > In other words, it is the act of homosexual intercourse that is being outlawed, not homosexuality per se. Quoting from Lawrence vs Texas: “To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/122 "2003-07-02T21:02:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*Quoting from Lawrence vs Texas: > > “To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” \*\* Thank you for highlighting this, **Bkalron**. I was beginning to feel that I was completely out of step in seeing this as the most important point about Kennedy’s opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/123 "2003-07-03T00:10:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*FTR, race-related matters are a “suspect class” for equal protection purposes, subject to “strict scrutiny” analysis. For that reason, it is much, much harder to have a law that makes any kind of distinction based on race pass constitutional muster. On those grounds, I strongly suspect even your race-neutral anti-miscegenation law would fail the court’s scrutiny. \*\* Thanks, I appreciate the info. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/124 "2003-07-03T00:17:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Question: Would conservatives support a Constitutional amendment extending protection to gay relationships (assuming it was tailored to exclude polygamy, etc. and ignoring the burdens of the amendment process)? \*\* I don’t know if I’m a Conservative or not, but I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals–i.e., marriage if they so choose, sex between consenting adults should not be the government’s business, etc. I don’t know if an amendment is the proper way to ensure this (I don’t know that it’s not), but I have no philosophical opposition to this protection per se, if that’s what you mean. In fact, let me state it more emphatically: I support such a change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786.md?page=6)