Sodomy Laws (Lawrence v. Texas)
12 states have some sort of law against “sodomy”, or what is broadly defined as anal or oral copulation with a individual, regardless of place where it happens. So, even in the privacy of one’s home, a couple can be taken in for violating sodomy laws. Why exactly is this such a hot topic issue in the GLBT community? Only four of the states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri) have laws against same-sex couples only; the other eight seem to be equally against both same-sex and heterosexual sodomy. The difference here is in the enforcement of the law; while the law also banning heterosexual sodomy is technically present on the books in 8 states, it is almost wholly homosexual groups that are being persecuted under these laws.
Groups such as lambda legal and the human rights coalition have been trying to challenge these sodomy laws in any cases that come up to a jury court. Aside from smaller court challenges, one major case has taken place in the last year that some individuals may not know about. This case, Lawrence V. Texas, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26th, 2003, and dealt with the various appeals of an arrest of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under this sodomy law. Texas, the state in which they were arrested, is one of the precious four that have a specific anti-homosexual sodomy law in place, and prescribes a $200 fine, jail time, and registration as sex offenders.
Lawrence and Garner plead no contest to the charge, but they contest that the law currently in place is unconstitutional, as they believe that it violates equal protection under the law, as has been in place since the 14th Amendment. The defense contends that equal protection does not reach to the jurisdiction that Lawrence/Garner contend it does, as equal protection should not “interfere with the power of the state … to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people.”
The defendants also contend that their privacy was violated, and that there is a zone in which sexual privacy should dominate. While the official court brief claims that there are two precedents to this form of privacy, in the fourth and ninth Amendments, the court also shows that since the officers were allowed in, the defendants gave all right away under the fourth Amendment. The ninth Amendment was brought up and consequently shot down as a defense, since the Court of Appeals ruled that “the position that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.”
What was decided upon in the Court of Appeals can be verified yet again, or could be completely reversed by a Supreme Court decision. But, one should remember the (brief) history of GLBT cases that have came before the Supreme Court, and see how those went. The largest, and most well remembered, 1986’s Bowers V. Hardwick, showed the Supreme Court to still be a very conservative group, as it upheld the then-current sodomy law in Georgia, verifying the arrest of two men at home. Georgia’s law was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court in 1998, which brought the number of states with these laws down to twelve. However, the decision that will be handed forth in Lawrence V. Texas in the next few months comes in a much different climate than the Bowers V. Hardwick. Just in the last few weeks, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has banned the typical DOJ gay pride parade. Civil rights, not just of GLBT individuals but of any visible minority, have been curtailed in the power grab perpetuated by the Bush regime under the guise of a war to save the United States.
However, all things are not bleak in the continual struggle to equalize GLBT rights with those given to heterosexuals in this country. Specifically, in the battle to destroy these sodomy laws, one must remember that in the 1960’s, all 50 states in the nation had these laws. 2003, and only 12 states (or less than 25%) still have them. In the first three years of this new century (2000-2003), Arizona has repealed its’ sodomy law and Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have had courts invalidate theirs.
An individual sees this piece, but it is just information. How exactly can one find the current status of GLBT issues and keep up to date about the latest affronts and victories to the cause? It’s really a simple answer. If the local paper does not have GLBT coverage, start a letter writing campaign to let them know that there are individuals who wish to know about a large (20%) section of American society. However, if this calling/letter writing coalition does not work, one can sign up for the Action Alerts on the Human Rights Campaign website at HRC.org . Lambda Legal (http://www.lambdalegal.com) covers more of the legal issues and uses more technical information than HRC, but is truly an invaluable source. Rounding out the major GLBT sites (check the internet for local and state groups – your state will definitely have a group, and a large local will too), is http://www.ngltf.org – the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which provides more general information and state-by-state contacts.