# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/21 "2003-06-26T15:10:19Z")
Goddamnit, I want to read the opinion, and I want to read it NOW!!! :mad: On what theory they decided the case is going to be crucial here. One good preliminary thing is the fact that there was only one concurrence, which means that there was a solid majority and the rationale of the decision (whatever it is) will be binding. Sua ---
**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, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/22 "2003-06-26T15:22:06Z")
You might want to dredge up your old thread about the Nike case, **Sua**. The Supremes apparently reversed that California court on that one today too. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/23 "2003-06-26T15:23:49Z")
wow… I really can’t believe it. I never expected the conservative rehnquist court to uphold affirmative action and privacy rights for gays. I’m amazed. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/24 "2003-06-26T15:29:56Z")
Yeah, it’s been quite the surprising week up there, hasn’t it? Woohoo! ---
**Author:** ![Lucki\_Chaarms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lucki\_Chaarms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucki_Chaarms)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/25 "2003-06-26T15:36:20Z")
OK, southern queer community, on 3. 1… 2… 3… YEEEEEEE-HAAAW!! Good job, SCOTUS, good job. LC ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/26 "2003-06-26T15:36:55Z")
Interesting that both the Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas opinions were written by Justice Kennedy. He seems to be the one moving the Court on gay rights issues. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/27 "2003-06-26T15:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally from the AP article cited by **minty green** _ > **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.** Whee! One of the underpinning laws keeping the necrophiliacs down has been removed! Time to crack open a cold one! Enjoy, Steven Note: This is a sarcastic post about the inane, but apparently legally “correct”, idea that protecting consensual, adult, homosexual activities “logically extend[s]” to protecting necrophilia. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/28 "2003-06-26T15:37:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*You might want to dredge up your old thread about the Nike case, **Sua**. The Supremes apparently reversed that California court on that one today too. \*\* You happen to recall what my position was on that, and whether I won or not? Whatever it was, I’m sure it was heart-felt and impassioned. 😃 Sua ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/29 "2003-06-26T15:42:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Time to crack open a cold one! Funny and nauseating at the same time. I’ll be laughing while I hurl. ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/30 "2003-06-26T15:44:44Z")
Sua, You can read the decisions here: [SCOTUSblog](http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_06_22_SCOTUSblog.cfm#105663898602769716) ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/31 "2003-06-26T15:45:30Z")
[Lawrence v. Texas](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf) (.pdf) Happy reading! ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/32 "2003-06-26T15:46:01Z")
Found the Nike thread, **minty.** FTR, my position then was an impassioned “undecided.” After I read the SCOTUS decision, I’ll probably start a new thread, and link the old ones to it. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/33 "2003-06-26T15:47:37Z")
Excellent, thanks for the links. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/34 "2003-06-26T15:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Why, I’m sure some of Scalia’s best friends are gay. Somehow, I doubt it. But he’s right: this opinion DOES take sides in a culture war, in a way I’m not sure is the most solid of reasoning (equal protection would have been a far stronger ground here: due process rationale is far more sweeping, but its one of those vague penumbry rights that could be used for anything, good or bad) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/35 "2003-06-26T15:50:56Z")
I predicted this waaay before minty did. I even predicted Scalia’s angry dissent from the bench. The only thing I got wrong was that I figured O’Connor would write the majority opinion. From reports it sounds like she wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the majority but for different reasons. I’ll be really interested to read her opinion here and see how it’s changed from her joining the majority in Bowers. ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/36 "2003-06-26T16:01:39Z")
**Otto,** from what I understand of the opinions, Kennedy’s comes down to Due Process, while O’Connor takes it on Equal Protection. I think it’s important to note that, because O’Connor is concurring but not reversing her _Bowers_ ideology. The Georgia statute in the 86 decision outlawed sodomy for everyone… the TX one just for gays. ---
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/37 "2003-06-26T16:12:06Z")
Yes, the majority appears to stick strictly to due process and overruling Bowers, while O’Connor declines to revisit Bowers and instead would invalidate down the Texas statute on equal protection grounds. Interestingly, O’Connor does not appear to buy the argument advanced by the petitioners that the statute is a gender-based classification that requires intermediate scrutiny. Instead, as with Romer v. Evans, she would apply only low-level, rational-basis scrutiny to the statute, but knock it down anyway because “Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group,is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.” On to Scalia’s dissent. That ought to be amusing. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/38 "2003-06-26T16:15:32Z")
I found Thomas’ dissent interesting > [@](#): > > I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is…uncommonly silly.” If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. > > Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’” And,just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” In other words, it’s a stupid law but stupid laws can be allowed by the Constitution. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/39 "2003-06-26T16:17:54Z")
I just read the opinion; **NWR** ’s correct: the majority overrules _Bowers_ outright on substantive due process grounds, while O’Conner rested her opinion on equal protection (and would have kept _Bowers_ as good law). Here is the key passage from the majority opinion: > [@](#): > > Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece-dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. > > 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 easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosex-ual 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. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. I read this as creating a SDP right to any private sexual conduct, so long as: 1. It doesn’t involve kids; 2. It doesn’t involve coercion or lack of consent, or situations where consent would be suspect; 3. It does not include public conduct or prostitution; 4. It does not require the formal recognition of a particular relationship. Which, it appears to me, realizes some of the fears of those who opposed this ruling. It certainly appears that adult incest and adultery are now constitutionally protected, and there appears to be a possibility that prostitution not involving “public conduct” might well also be protected (depending on how literally you take that “or”). ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/40 "2003-06-26T16:24:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\*Why, I’m sure some of Scalia’s best friends are gay. > \*\* To be perfectly fair, what Scalia actually wrote was this: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.” Just quoting him as “adding ‘I have nothing against homosexuals’” is almost criminally misleading. The AP should be ashamed. Thomas’ dissent pretty much reflects my position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103.md?page=3)