# 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:** 5
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/82 "2003-06-26T22:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Ah, but the Supreme Court had itself _approved_ the concept of busing. The Supreme Court has not approved prostitution, necrophilia, pedohilia, etc., etc., nor will it do so.** No, but it has approved a principle that can very easily be applied to some if not all of the less savory practices you list. Which is not unlike what happened in the busing cases.\*\* > [@](#): > > If a trial court somewhere is stupid enought to declare that _Lawrence_ makes means prostitution is a constitutional right, that court will get squashed like a bug by the appellate courts and, if need be, the U.S. Supreme Court. It defies reality to believe otherwise. \*\* It defies reality to suggest that the lower courts will do crazy shit? Read some 9th Circuit or 4th Circuit opinions sometime (depending on your political proclivities). I think it defies reality to suggest they _won’t_ do crazy shit. And as you’re so fond of noting, this is not exactly an active Supreme Court. How many cert petitions get picked up for review again? ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/83 "2003-06-26T23:04:20Z")
> [@](#): > > It defies reality to suggest that the lower courts will do crazy shit? Read some 9th Circuit or 4th Circuit opinions sometime (depending on your political proclivities). I think it defies reality to suggest they won’t do crazy shit. > > And as you’re so fond of noting, this is not exactly an active Supreme Court. How many cert petitions get picked up for review again? I fondly look forward to crazy shit happening. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/84 "2003-06-26T23:10:40Z")
Yes, **Blalron** , I know you only care about the “what” to the exclusion of the “how.” ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/85 "2003-06-26T23:11:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > It defies reality to suggest that the lower courts will do crazy shit? It defies reality to suggest that the lower courts will do the specific crazy shit you and Scalia are hyping. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/86 "2003-06-26T23:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*It defies reality to suggest that the lower courts will do the specific crazy shit you and Scalia are hyping. \*\* Never bet against crazy shit. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/87 "2003-06-26T23:19:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*That’s pretty much exactly what I had in mind, and I think that’s a very real possibility. Like I said, it depends on how literally you read that “or.” > > Re: necrophilia – I agree that it’s highly unlikely. Plausible, yes, but not terribly likely. I do think it’s kind of sad that a state would have to rely on public health concerns and property rights to outlaw necrophilia. It seems to me the primary reason for doing so is not some health or ownership concern, but a palpable moral sense that fucking a corpse is _wrong_. That alone ought to be reason enough for such a ban. \*\* A corpse is not a consenting adult. Neither is an animal. The laws against Bestiality and Corpse fucking will still remain in effect, and your chicken little style “sky is falling” predictions will come NOT come to fruition. Society will not collapse because two enthusiastically consenting grown men can express their love for each other in a physical manner in the confines of their own home. And if you think democracy is “thwarted” because of this… I’m sympathetic. Really, I am. Poor Texas! I’m playing a tiny violin for you right now. A tear is rolling down my cheek because your sacred right to throw queers in jail has been violated. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/88 "2003-06-26T23:28:30Z")
> [@](#): > > I would also see the state as having an interest here. Necrophilia could be criminalized(and probably is) under any number of public-health statutes. Plus the fact that private residences don’t often have the facilities necessary to preserve corpses and prevent the spread of disease. Someone would have to turn their home(probably their bedroom) into a morgue and then sit and wait for their spouse to keel over(and hope it wasn’t in some messy accident that would ruin the body), claim it as property and then do the nasty with it for a pretty short timeperiod before they ran afoul of health statutes that mandate putting it in the ground. I’m working from memory here, but I suspect quite strongly that the reasoning that follows is true: Regardless of the questions about consent (a pre-mortem letter? bad zombie jokes?), the issue of title to the body of the deceased has been addressed in the courts, thanks to families at odds with the will of the deceased as regards its disposal. And the title to the corpse resides in the estate of the deceased, not in his/her next of kin. Though in the absence of a will, they are empowered to act in accordance with standards of public decency to arrange for its disposal. Ergo, because the body belongs to the estate of the person who occupied it before death, and that estate cannot consent to a use for it contrary to public policy, the person wishing to have sex with it is restrained from doing so by a lack of consent. (Presuming that necrophilia remains contrary to public policy, a presumption I don’t expect to seriously see challenged! ;)) ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/89 "2003-06-26T23:41:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*A corpse is not a consenting adult. \*\* So you say. What if it’s just a big piece of dead meat, no worse than fucking a warm apple pie? But like I said, I agree that necrophilia is an unlikely candidate for constitutional protection, for reasons already discussed. The things that are more likely to end up protected are adult incest, adultery, and possibly Heidi Fleiss style prostitution. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/90 "2003-06-26T23:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Ergo, because the body belongs to the estate of the person who occupied it before death, and that estate cannot consent to a use for it contrary to public policy, the person wishing to have sex with it is restrained from doing so by a lack of consent. \*\* What if the person expresses a desire to be a sex toy in his or her will after they pass on?\*\*\*\*\* What if the administrator of their estate consents? You’re right that it’s “against public policy,” but ignoring any possible public health rationale it’s against public policy for purely moral reasons. If purely moralistic reasons are an insufficient public policy to invade private sexual choices (as the court held today), then sex with a consenting corpse might well be constitutionally protected. And of course that assumes the corpse is more than a hunk o’ meat necessitating consent in the first place. (Again, I don’t see this actually happening. But it’s a fun point to argue). - There have been requests more fucked up than this in past wills. When I was taking Wills & Estates in law school, there was an example in the casebook of one guy who wanted his skin removed and used as a bookbinding for his memoirs. No cite, but I swear I am not making it up. I’m not that creative. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/91 "2003-06-27T00:06:22Z")
The arguments put forth by opponents of gay rights frankly baffle me. It doesn’t take a whole lot of brainstorming to see significant differences between private adult sexual conduct and bestiality and corpse raping. Scalia and his ilk to stain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, pretending there is no material differences between homosexuality and the laundry list of horrors that they insist await us in the future as a result of this decision. Their obtuseness and myopia are made abundantly clear. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/92 "2003-06-27T00:24:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*So you say. What if it’s just a big piece of dead meat, no worse than fucking a warm apple pie? There are problematic consent issues on the part of the corpse, plus the issues of corpse “ownership” which I believe can convincingly justify a blanket ban on corpse screwing notwithstanding issues of sexual freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/93 "2003-06-27T00:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*So you say. What if it’s just a big piece of dead meat, no worse than fucking a warm apple pie? > > But like I said, I agree that necrophilia is an unlikely candidate for constitutional protection, for reasons already discussed. The things that are more likely to end up protected are adult incest, adultery, and possibly Heidi Fleiss style prostitution. \*\* I see this as a reasonable inference, but I don’t see why that’s a problem. What right does a state have to _prevent_ these things (assuming that the same right to privacy would obtain in these cases as it does in L&G V. Texas)? ---
**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 27, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/94 "2003-06-27T00:43:46Z")
Sheesh, you guys are _way_ overthinking this. The majority opinion is quite clear about what it is and is not protecting: > [@](#): > > 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 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/95 "2003-06-27T00:46:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **What if the person expresses a desire to be a sex toy in his or her will after they pass on?** _\*\* What if the administrator of their estate consents? > > You’re right that it’s “against public policy,” but ignoring any possible public health rationale it’s against public policy for purely moral reasons. If purely moralistic reasons are an insufficient public policy to invade private sexual choices (as the court held today), then sex with a consenting corpse might well be constitutionally protected. And of course that assumes the corpse is more than a hunk o’ meat necessitating consent in the first place. > > (Again, I don’t see this actually happening. But it’s a fun point to argue). > > - There have been requests more fucked up than this in past wills. When I was taking Wills & Estates in law school, there was an example in the casebook of one guy who wanted his skin removed and used as a bookbinding for his memoirs. No cite, but I swear I am not making it up. I’m not that creative. \*\* I think the public health issue is suffiecient enough that “moral” considerations would not have to be brought into play. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/96 "2003-06-27T00:47:14Z")
**Dewey** , you are more than welcome to fuck your own apple pie, but I’d have objections to your fucking my apple pie. (Although if we can get enough paying customers to watch you do it, I might very well reconsider! ;)) Much the same argument applies to the point I was trying to make. Title to the corpse resides in the estate of the deceased, and that estate is prevented from violating public policy in its disposition – regardless of the wishes of the deceased. If a man stated in his will that he wishes his penis to be preserved erect by a taxidermist and given to his wife for use as a dildo, I presume that that provision would be declared contrary to public policy and disregarded (even if his widow wants it!). If you choose to assume a shift in public policy to the point that necrophilia becomes publicly acceptable, you’re free to do so. I’m trying to work from the basis of the law as it is currently expounded, taking into account _Lawrence_ and the concerns you raised on its implications. Is there any remote chance we can get back to the implications of _Lawrence_ for the lives of gay men and women, as opposed to pederasts, necrophiliacs, adulterous pedophile necrophiliacs, persons who masturbate while looking at pictures of Justice Scalia, and other perversions? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/97 "2003-06-27T01:04:33Z")
> [@](#): > > persons who masturbate while looking at pictures of Justice Scalia, :eek: My god, **Poly** , I had no idea you were concealing such a dark mind. That is one hideous image. [shudder] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/98 "2003-06-27T01:11:57Z")
LORD! If I had _seen_ such a thing, I might find some relief by gouging out my eyes, but Nooooooooo. What is one to do? Snort a mixture of LSD and Drano? Thanks for sharing, **Polycarp**. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/99 "2003-06-27T01:40:08Z")
If in the fact the privacy right does exist and is now being solidifed, just out of curiousity, what’s to stop a one justice majority from overturning: Local & State & Income Tax Laws Medicare & Social Security tax withholdings Commerce Regulations and a whole host of other laws that some civil libertarians could argue are just as much of a Government infringement on personal privacy? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/100 "2003-06-27T01:56:36Z")
Good sense? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103/101 "2003-06-27T02:01:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JohnBckWLD \* > \*\*If in the fact the privacy right does exist and is now being solidifed, just out of curiousity, what’s to stop a one justice majority from overturning: > > Local & State & Income Tax Laws > Medicare & Social Security tax withholdings > Commerce Regulations > > and a whole host of other laws that some civil libertarians could argue are just as much of a Government infringement on personal privacy? \*\* Could you please explain how these things could remotely be protected under a right to privacy? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawrence-garner-v-texas-decision/184103.md?page=6)