Justices Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and O’Connor were in the majority, although O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case, but not the rational.
Kennedy said that , “The texas law that was struck down demeans the lives of homosexual persons. Homosexuals 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.”
Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia dissented, with Scalia reading his dissent from the bench.
Scalia said, in part, "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda. The court has taken sides in the culture war."
Scalia added that he has, " nothing against homosexuals."
I find Scalia’s remarks about taking sides in the culture war semi-ludicorus, as the Court does this all the time, one example being whenever a case involving flag burning comes up before the court.
I think it’s a very good decision as it protects the right to privacy.
It isn’t reading from the bench, it’s making thundering comments about people and parties outside the scope of legal reasoning. To be fair, other judges engage in it at times as well, such as the “Poor Joshua!” in DeShaney, and the dissenters in Bush V Gore.
While I am happy with the decision, I’m really irked.
There’s absolutely no reason for this law to be on the books in the first place. I’m sick and tired of people having to run to the courts to beg for them to rectify legislative stupidity. The legislators of Texas should have repealled this law a long time ago. They’re nothing but a bunch of bigoted cowards.
To be fair, the dissent in the DeShaney case was arguing that natural human compassion should have been used rather than the cool legal detachment of the majority. So I’d say the “Poor Joshua!” comment fits in a lot more nicely than Scalia’s comments about the “gay agenda”
If by “legalize”, you mean go about your business with no fear of legal reprisal, you can do that NOW in all 50 states (assuming it’s in private and you’re both adults)
If by legalize you mean give special legal recognition, you can get married in Canada. And Vermont recognizes civil unions between same sex partners.
The fight still goes on, but MAJOR progress has been made recently. I hope you can see that and perhaps be slightly less pessimistic.
I really think you are underestimating the magnitude of this decision. IMHO, more progress has been made for gays within the last month than in the past 25 years.
This might seem amateurish, but I suspect that people who are against gays and lesbians doing their thing in private are also prone to warmaking. Is that a possible explanation why Canada didn’t join Bush in his warmongering against Iraq?
Listen, the fight has been on for over 30 years, at least since Stonewall.
And excuse me if I am not thanking anyone for “granting” me constitutional rights.
While I can appreciate the warm fuzzy feeling some are experiencing, it reminds me of how white folk felt back in the 60’s when they patted themselves on the back and said, “them Nigrah’s sure oughta be happy they can now legally drink water from the same fountain as me!”
Call me an uppity faggot, but “winning” basic rights doesn’t make me all warm and fuzzy. It pisses me off to think it has taken this long for the government to legally get the hell out of my bedroom.
And the fact that, as you say, “more progress has been made for gays within the last month than in the past 25 years” - well, that is just fucking depressing.
But to show you I am not totally missing the magnitude of this edict, I do appreciate that if nothing else, there is now a legal foundation to break down a few other doors. I know, “…great journey…begins with single step” and all.
So yeah, from a legal ammunition standpoint, it was indeed a good thing. Now Gays at least one legal bullet - which pretty much puts us in the legal brute force category of Barney Fife.
