EDITORIAL
Victory for gays, and privacy for all
On the strength of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week, we'd like to welcome Texas and 12 other states to the 20th century.
Even better, the Supreme Court itself showed signs of preparing itself for the 21st century, although it's not there yet.
The high court struck down a Texas law that forbids homosexual sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their home. It's hard to believe in this day and age that Houston police in 1998 barged into a bedroom and caught John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner in flagrante delicto, threw them in jail overnight and ultimately fined them each $200 for "deviate sexual intercourse."
Lest you think this case applies only to homosexuals, nine of the 13 states whose sodomy laws were overturned by the ruling (Hawai'i is not among them) ban heterosexuals as well as homosexuals from anal or oral sex.
Entitled to private lives
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 Texas decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that gay people "are entitled to respect for their private lives," adding that "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Showing how far society and the court have evolved in 17 years, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was one of the justices voting to uphold a similar Georgia case in 1986. In the Texas case, O'Connor wrote, "A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review."
Full rights for gays
The decision is an important step toward full rights for gay men and women. It may help them in legal disputes rising from "moral disapproval," such as child-custody cases, adoption proceedings, anti-gay bias cases in the workplace and the policy of dismissing gays from the military.
The Texas ruling already is having a domino effect on other cases. The Supreme Court yesterday vacated a 17-year prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy. Had the younger child been a girl, the defendant would have received about 15 months in prison or probation. In challenging this sentence, the American Civil Liberties Union said it was not challenging a state's right to punish older teenagers for having sex with younger ones, but rather that the rules should not be different for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.
Angry dissent
In dissent of the Texas decision, an angry Justice Antonin Scalia said it paves the way for homosexual marriages. If that happens, we'll welcome the U.S. Supreme Court to the 21st century. In the meantime, the more important practical result of this ruling is that homosexuals in those 13 states will no longer be denied their rights in a variety of circumstances because they have ceased to be "criminals."
