# Lawrence & Garner v Texas -- Decision? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103 "2003-06-24T18:57:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/1 "2003-06-24T18:57:38Z")
SCOTUS was supposed to hand down its decision on the case of the gay men prosecuted for sodomy in Texas, _Lawrence [and Garner] v Texas_, during June. Its normal announcement-of-decision days are Mondays, and yesterday was the last Monday in June. Does anyone know if there has been any announcement regarding this case, and if so, what it was? The press has been remarkably silent, and a Google search turned up nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/2 "2003-06-24T19:02:30Z")
If it’d happened, we’d’ve heard about it. Along with _Gratz_ and _Grutter_, it was the big case this spring. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/3 "2003-06-24T19:23:23Z")
It’s not out yet, but it’ll be all over the news services the moment the decision is announced. If you look at [last year’s opinions list](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html), you’ll see that they released opinions on both Mondays and Thursdays for the last couple weeks of June, plus a couple more on the last Friday. Fear not, Justice Scalia is poisoning his pen even as we speak. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/4 "2003-06-24T19:25:22Z")
[Last year’s opinions list](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html), since I accidentally gave you this year’s list instead. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/5 "2003-06-26T00:41:52Z")
[Tomorrow, according to CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/25/scotus.sodomy/index.html). Any predictions, anyone, on what’ll happen, and the results on the populace at large either way? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/6 "2003-06-26T01:52:50Z")
The Forces of Darkness control all the levers of government, the Supremes no longer need to maintain even the posture of even-handedness or rationality. Since one of the participants in this unholy and unatural act was black, they will rule it illegal on the grounds of miscegnation. (Of course, I’m kidding. I hope.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/7 "2003-06-26T01:57:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Leaper \* > \*\*[Tomorrow, according to CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/25/scotus.sodomy/index.html). > > Any predictions, anyone, on what’ll happen, and the results on the populace at large either way? \*\* There was an IMHO thread a few months ago on how it would come down, who’d write the majority opinion, and who’d dissent. I don’t think it dealt with public reaction. And my apologies, but I’m not going to trouble the hamsters to find it. I remember that **minty green** and I both posted to it, among others, and I think **Dewey** did as well. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/8 "2003-06-26T01:58:12Z")
I expect the same 6-3 split as in _Romer v. Evans_, with perhaps a concurring opinion from a couple of the majority justices backing away from the Due Process holding of _Bowers v. Hardwick_. Scalia’s venom will most certainly flow, whether in dissent or (god forbid) concurrence. I very much hope there is a clear majority opinion. They’ve had too many split rationales in recent years, leaving some rather important issues open for further litigation. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/9 "2003-06-26T02:02:45Z")
I think 5-4 against Lawrence. I don’t see them broading the definition of the 14th Amendment that much this term. Of course, this may be O’Connor’s last MAJOR case and she is difficult to peg. I still think 5-4 upholding Bowers. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/10 "2003-06-26T02:07:20Z")
Old thread: [Supreme Court hears challenge to Texas Sodomy Ban](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=172810). Might be fun to look back and reminisce on our speculation after this sucker comes out tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/11 "2003-06-26T14:09:00Z")
CNN is reporting the decision is out, and that from what I can glean they took the substantive due process route rather than the equal protection route in striking down the Texas law (ha ha **minty** , you were wrong). Anyone know where to get a copy of the opinion? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/12 "2003-06-26T14:20:59Z")
It’ll be posted [here](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html) in a few hours. Until then, we’re stuck with second-hand news accounts. I’d be quite surprised if they reversed on substantive due process, so I’m guessing that might just be reporters thinking of this as reversing Bowers. We shall see. Gosh, this one almost makes up for Bush v. Gore. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/13 "2003-06-26T14:21:59Z")
– U.S. Supreme Court overturns Texas sodomy law that prohibited consensual sex by same-sex partners. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html) Win one for the good gays, er “guys”. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/14 "2003-06-26T14:24:56Z")
Here’s the early description from the Associated Press: > [@](#): > > The law “demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. > > Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court. > > The men “are entitled to respect for their private lives,” Kennedy wrote. > > “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” he said. > > Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy’s rationale. > > Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. > > “The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. > > “The court has taken sides in the culture war,” Scalia said, adding that he has “nothing against homosexuals.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/15 "2003-06-26T14:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Gosh, this one almost makes up for Bush v. Gore. 😃 Were Bush and Gore convicted of sodomizing each other?🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/16 "2003-06-26T14:49:09Z")
Yep, a 6-3 split, predictably with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting against the right to privacy. I LOVE this quote from Scalia: > [@](#): > > “The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” Scalia wrote for the three, according to the AP. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. > > “The court has taken sides in the culture war,” Scalia said, adding that he has “nothing against homosexuals.” Why, I’m sure some of Scalia’s best friends are gay. Putz. Anyhoo, well done, Supremes! ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/17 "2003-06-26T14:52:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I expect the same 6-3 split as in _Romer v. Evans_, (snip) \*\* OK, **minty** , who do you have in the 6:40 at Belmont on Friday? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/18 "2003-06-26T14:55:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I’d be quite surprised if they reversed on substantive due process, so I’m guessing that might just be reporters thinking of this as reversing Bowers. We shall see. \*\* The CNN report on TV said that the ruling appeared to invalidate all sodomy laws, not just gay-specific sodomy laws and quoted some very due-processy language. It certainly didn’t sound very equal protection like. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/19 "2003-06-26T15:06:58Z")
Nice! I claim the SDMB Psychics award for identifying not only the vote but who’d write the majority and the dissent. I am surprised but pleased that they bought the entire argument, not just the equal protection portion that would have invalidated the Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas laws. > [@](#): > > Were Bush and Gore convicted of sodomizing each other? To judge from some of the past debates on this board, they were certainly accused (here) of the _attempt_! 😃 Congratulations to all you folks who are affected by this! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/20 "2003-06-26T15:08:35Z")
Yes, it does indeed look like substantive due process, with _Bowers_ expressly overruled by the 5-judge majority. A wonderful outcome, IMO, much cleaner than an equal protection opinion would have been. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103.md?page=2)