Snyder v. Phelps Decided

Hey, so what would happen if you got a bunch of people together, came to a residential neighbourhood at 3am and started protesting something or other with loudspeakers, banners, and so on?

The cops would show you and tell you that what you're doing is illegal, right?

There are limits to free speech.

That is a time place and manner restriction. This case is about content restrictions, in so far as the government is (or would have been but for this ruling) enforcing a ruling telling one party to fork over cash to another party for something they said.

That's really the crucial difference and it is a huge difference. Time place and manner, generally OK with a few caveats. Content restrictions? The courts will scrutinize those with a fine tooth comb.
 
That is a time place and manner restriction. This case is about content restrictions, in so far as the government is (or would have been but for this ruling) enforcing a ruling telling one party to fork over cash to another party for something they said.

That's really the crucial difference and it is a huge difference. Time place and manner, generally OK with a few caveats. Content restrictions? The courts will scrutinize those with a fine tooth comb.
I'm all for the time and place restriction. What if some other random group decides to protest at a funeral for one of my loved ones? This ruling just opened the door for all types of unfavorable things to come out.
 
Recreational marijuana users are doing something illegal. Probably the key difference with regards to being dehumanised. The illegality is probably largely what causes the dehumanisation.
Sodomy was illegal in many parts until a few years ago.
 
I'm all for the time and place restriction. What if some other random group decides to protest at a funeral for one of my loved ones? This ruling just opened the door for all types of unfavorable things to come out.
As long as they were obeying local law, they can do it. These people were 1,000 feet away, not popping out from behind the casket.
 
I'm all for the time and place restriction. What if some other random group decides to protest at a funeral for one of my loved ones? This ruling just opened the door for all types of unfavorable things to come out.

Your statement is contradictory and unintelligible. :cry:
 
Sodomy was illegal in many parts until a few years ago.

Please tell me you aren't trying to equate persecution of homosexuals with persecution of recreational marijuana users. I don't think the illegality of recreational marijuana usage is justified, but there is a clear difference between that issue and targeting predominantly homosexual activity. You can choose whether or not to pursue your recreational marijuana usage, and subsequently, you have a real choice in whether or not to break the law.

(I won't reply further, so as to not derail the thread :))
 
You can also choose whether or not to perform sodomy, it's a real choice.
 
Please tell me you aren't trying to equate persecution of homosexuals with persecution of recreational marijuana users. I don't think the illegality of recreational marijuana usage is justified, but there is a clear difference between that issue and targeting predominantly homosexual activity. You can choose whether or not to pursue your recreational marijuana usage, and subsequently, you have a real choice in whether or not to break the law.
1) Sodomy is also a choice.
2) Being thrown in a jail cell for years is a pretty serious form of persecution. Not enough people realize this. There is a ridiculous amount of maliciousness involved in doing that to someone.
3) I wasn't trying to equate the two, merely observing that when it comes to "burnouts" or "stoners" it seems to be entirely ok to restrict their speech, among other things. People point to homosexuals as having it bad, but in many ways they kind of have it better than people who choose other abnormal or illegal(in this case) lifestyles. Not in all ways of course. I'm not trying to degrade the struggle for gay rights.
 
I see similarities between the two. Even if homosexuality is just a choice, sodomy laws were still like marijuana laws in that they are victimless acts that became crimes once filtered through the eyes of those who want their society to be sober, straight, and silent.
 
And how many of those states were actively enforcing those laws?

That's an irrelevant question; what's relevant is that it took until 2003 for those laws to be completely permanently taken off the books.

To answer your question anyway: quite a few, because there were quite a few cases, only two or three of which made it up to the Supreme Court, the others being rejected by lower courts.
 
That's an irrelevant question

No, its not. It directly shows the level of impact those long un-enforced laws had.

what's relevant is that it took until 2003 for those laws to be completely permanently taken off the books.

No, its not. Case in point, there are thousands of such meaningless laws still on the books of a large number of states. What makes them relevant or not is whether they are enforced or not.

To answer your question anyway: quite a few, because there were quite a few cases, only two or three of which made it up to the Supreme Court, the others being rejected by lower courts.

Quite a few? Source? I was under the impression that there had been a mere handful for the last 30 or 40 years or so. If you have some evidence to define what 'quite a few' means please provide it.
 
1) Sodomy is also a choice.
2) Being thrown in a jail cell for years is a pretty serious form of persecution. Not enough people realize this. There is a ridiculous amount of maliciousness involved in doing that to someone.
3) I wasn't trying to equate the two, merely observing that when it comes to "burnouts" or "stoners" it seems to be entirely ok to restrict their speech, among other things. People point to homosexuals as having it bad, but in many ways they kind of have it better than people who choose other abnormal or illegal(in this case) lifestyles. Not in all ways of course. I'm not trying to degrade the struggle for gay rights.

Civver is right in that you can choose to pursue homosexuality or not. He is also right that years in prison is a very large punishment.

That said, its easy to "Say no" to marijuanna.
 
Civver is right in that you can choose to pursue homosexuality or not. He is also right that years in prison is a very large punishment.

That said, its easy to "Say no" to marijuanna.

Civver is also right in that we should have the freedoms to do both of those things.
 
This is not a discussion about whether one can choose or not choose homosexuality...back on topic. ;)

NickyJ said:
I'm all for the time and place restriction. What if some other random group decides to protest at a funeral for one of my loved ones? This ruling just opened the door for all types of unfavorable things to come out.

How does this ruling do what you say?
 
And how many of those states were actively enforcing those laws?
It is amazing how frequently you try to rationalize these provincial religion-inspired laws under this same excuse. That they really aren't that bad because only a handful of people had their lives ruined by merely engaging in perfectly normal sexual acts between consenting adults.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm

[While we are uncertain, we think this article is from the Washington Post (date uncertain) - Staff]

Sodomy remains illegal in Maryland, Virginia and 22 other states, and while critics of sodomy laws say they are used largely to discriminate against gay men and lesbians, most of those laws also apply to heterosexuals.

James Moseley thought sodomy laws applied only to homosexuals. Charged with sexually assaulting his estranged wife, the Georgia carpenter testified at his trial that she willingly had oral sex with him.

The jury acquitted Moseley of rape, but found him guilty of consensual sodomy. He was sentenced to five years in prison and served 18 months before being freed in August 1989.


"I had no idea that I was incriminating myself," said Moseley, now 38.

Although sodomy prosecutions are rare, they do occur, against both homosexuals and heterosexuals. In North Caroline, a heterosexual man was sentenced to 10 years in prison and served two for having oral sex with a woman in 1988. A Maryland man was sentenced to 18 months' probation for heterosexual sodomy in 1986. And in 1988, a female Marine corporal was imprisoned for six months at Quantico Marine Corps Base for having oral sex with a woman.

Groups lobbying for repeal of sodomy laws across the country say that the laws provide the underpinnings for discrimination against gay men and lesbians in a wide range of areas, including employment, child custody, and housing. Defenders of the laws counter that they rightly stigmatize homosexual activity, which many heterosexual Americans consider immoral.

The District's vote is the latest in a long line of such repeal votes around the country. If the vote is not overturned by Congress, which blocked repeal by the District in 1981, it would be the first legislative repeal of a sodomy law in a decade. Wisconsin, in 1983, was the last state to repeal a sodomy ban.

Sodomy originally was banned in every state, but since 1961 the laws have been repealed or ruled unconstitutional in 26 states. Nine states have narrowed their laws to apply only to homosexuals.

Some sodomy laws retain "crime against nature" language; most outlaw oral and anal sex between consenting adults. The majority make sodomy a felony carrying a wide range of maximum prison sentences, including 10 years in Maryland and 20 in Virginia.

Opponents of the laws, rooted in religious prohibitions on nonreproductive sexual activity, say they are anachronistic bans on behaviour that surveys show is extremely common among both gay people and heterosexuals.

"The evidence suggests that oral sex is practically universal in the United States, particulary among people under 50," said June Renish, director of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington. She also estimated, based on 40 years of surveys, that four of every 10 heterosexuals have at least tried anal sex.


Opponents say the laws are rarely used except in failed rape prosecutions and to provide legal justification for discriminating against homosexuals.

"Sodomy laws are used to say that gay people are criminals and, therefore, not entitled to constitutional protections," said New York law professor Aruther Leonard, author of "Sexuality and the Law."

The tendency of judges to equate homosexuality with sodomy cost one Virginia father the custody of his 9-year-old daughter. Alexandria lawyer James Lowe said the man was a CIA employee who lived with his longtime lover.

After the man's ex-wife sued to regain custody of their daughter, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that "the conduct inherent in the father's relationship is punishable as a ... felony." His daughter was forbidden to visit his home or to see him in the presence of his lover.


Gay rights lawyers say sodomy prosecutions can be arbitrary. For example, most gay people in the military are discharged, not imprisoned, if their sexuality is discovered, but Barbara Baum was not so lucky.

Baum, a military police corporal, was convicted of sodomy in 1988. Charges were brought, Baum said, after her lover's ex-boyfriend kicked in the door of their motel room and found her in bed with the woman. Baum was imprisoned for six months at Quantico.

District lawyer Michelle Benecke, who later wrote about the case, said she believes Baum was imprisoned to "send a message" to other women stationed with her at Parris Island, S.C., who were not cooperating with a wide-ranging probe of lesbianism.

Benecke said that ultimately 27 women were booted out and that three, including Baum, were jailed.

In Maryland, at least four attempts to repeal the sodomy law have failed in the General Assembly, most recently in 1988. In 1990, the Maryland Court of Appeals declared that the statue does not apply to private, heterosexual activity.

In making that ruling, Maryland's top court threw out the 1987 sodomy conviction of Steven A. Schochet, a Montgomery County man who had received five years' probation. He had been acquited of raping a Wheaton woman in her apartment in 1986.

The 1990 ruling means that Maryland's sodomy law applies only to gay people, although the statute refers to "every person" who commits prohibited sex acts with "any other person."

The gay rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's sodomy law, which applies to gay people and heterosexuals, was rebuffed by a special three-judge court in 1975.

Although Virginia's sodomy law is not limited to homosexuals, Virgina State Police and Fairfax County police say the law prevents them from hiring gay men or lesbians.

In Texas, Mica England, a lesbian, is suing the Dallas police over a similar rule and has won several rounds in court. She said she has learned "how difficult it is to make people understand we're just like they are. We're not perverts."

The use of sodomy laws to justify not hiring homosexuals is only one example of how the laws are used to discriminate against gay people, gay rights advocates say. The laws also are used as a rationale for statutes outlawing gay marriage and, in some places, gay adoption.

Similarly, the Bush administration, in one of its last official acts, argued in court in December that the military's sodomy law is reason to keep the ban against homosexuals in the armed services, even though that law applies to heterosexuals as well.

The best known defender of sodomy laws, at least as they apply to homosexuals, is Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers, who said they are based on "the public's collective perception of morality."

"I think the majority of Georgians would find homosexual sodomy to be immoral," Bowers said, adding that he does not think heterosexual sodomy similarly offends Georgians sensibilities.

Bowers successfully defended Georgia's sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the constitutional right to privacy does not extend to homosexual sodomy.

The case involved Michael Hardwick, a gay Atlanta bartender charged with having sex with another man in his bedroom. He was never prosecuted, but filed a challenge to the sodomy statute. The fact that he was not prosecuted or imprisoned apparently affected the swing vote by then- Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Although Powell agreed with the majority that the sodomy ban violated no privacy right, he wrote that "a prison sentence for such conduct -- certainly a sentence of long duration--would create a serious Eighth Amendment issue." That constitutional amendment outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.

After retiring, Powell said in 1990 that he had probably erred in voting to uphold sodomy laws, but he dismissed the Hardwick case as "frivolous," one brought "just to see what the court would do."

Since the Hardwick decision, foes of sodomy laws have concentrated--with some success--on trying to show that the laws violate state constitutions. Last September, the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned its state's homosexual-only sodomy law.

"We need not sympathize, agree with or even understand the sexual preference of homosexuals in order to recognize their right to equal treatment before the bar of criminal justice," the court wrote.

The highest court in Texas is expected to rule soon on a similar law, which lower courts have held unconstitutional.

In 1990, a judge in Wayne County, Mich., found his state's across-the- board ban on sodomy unconstitutional. (Because the decision was not appealed, it only applies to one county.) The ruling singled out the testimony of Verna Spayth, a disabled heterosexual in Ann Arbor, who said that post-polio syndrome prevents her from having traditional intercourse.

"It's real hard to tell yourself that people with disabilities shouldn't have sex because they can't in the one way that is legal here in Michigan," Spayth wrote in an interview.

Meanwhile, having become all too familiar with the reach of sodomy laws, Moseley, the carpenter, wants them eliminated.

"Now, I'm not in favor of homosexual activity, but who am I to say what two people [should] do in the privacy of their own bedroom?" said Moseley, who has moved to Tuskegee, Ala. "It's not my right to judge. It's God's right."

And the military continues to persecute soldiers under the sodomy laws.

Hetero Sodomy Conviction Upheld

In yet another exception to a 2003 Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy, a high military court, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, has upheld the sodomy conviction of a heterosexual marine in a case arising from events at an American base in Japan.

According to the opinion for the court by Judge David Wagner, Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Jakarri Avery was living on the base during divorce proceedings from his wife, a Japanese citizen. Avery acknowledged to his unit mates that he had both anal and oral sex with two other Japanese civilian women in his barracks room.

In his decision, Wagner noted that Avery’s wife had sued him in Japanese court for “redress of injuries she alleged as a result of the extra-marital affairs. On one occasion there was a confrontation between [Avery’s] wife and one of the two females at the on-base hotel that had to be resolved by military police.”

Military authorities prosecuted Avery for sodomy, adultery and indecent acts, as well as the possession and use of marijuana and Percocet, a prescription drug. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge that included forfeiture of pay and a reduction in grade.

Since the Marcum decision, there have been several military sodomy prosecutions, but in only one case, involving a service member and a civilian, did a military court find Lawrence to be controlling. Undoubtedly, Avery was hopeful that this precedent would be found to control his situation, but the court thought otherwise.

Virginia Appellate Court Upholds Sodomy Convictions

Virginia is one of 17 states in which consensual oral sex is illegal. As recently as 1960, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had such laws.

The appellate ruling left unanswered a question posed by Sam Garrison, the attorney who represented the 10 accused men. What would the court do if a married couple or two consenting adults acting in private were charged under the law?

The court noted that all 18 men charged in Roanoke’s sting operation with soliciting sodomy expressed some willingness to have sex with the officer in the park, though only one was ever convicted by a jury.

Even one person persecuted under these absurd laws, which have finally been declared unconstitution in the more backward states that still refused to abolish them, is one too many. But who knows how many people have been arrested and convicted under these laws. There certainly appear to have beem quite a number of them. Take the history of sodomy cases Georgia, for example:

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/georgia.htm

I think it is quite ironic that GWB used these very laws as an excuse to continue the draconian DADT policy under his presidency, which is finally being repealed despite the best efforts of many in the military to retain it.
 
Top Bottom