HBox
03-26-2003, 10:41 PM
Here are some gem quotes from today's Supreme Court hearing. A gay couple arrested for habing anal sex in their own apartment is trying to get the homosexual sodomy law repealed in Texas.
"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."
Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."
Smith argues that this is quite different from "giving all people free rein to make sexual decisions except one small group of people." Scalia retorts, "You can put it that way. You can make it sound puritanical. But lots of laws make moral judgments. What about the laws against bigamy?"
This one's by William Rehnquist:
Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or some conduct. That's why people regulate."
I love this one:
Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."
But this is my absolute favorite from the prosector from Texas:
"You are not homosexual if you commit one homosexual act,"
Here is one from the bastion of gay, Scalia:
"You think there is public approval of homosexuality?"
Here's the headscratching answer from Texas's prosector:
"There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity."
Texas has some great prosecutors:
Rosenthal says there's a good place to draw the line of privacy and fundamental rights, and that line is "at the bedroom door."
"But the line is at the bedroom door in this case!" yelps Breyer.
This exchange actually happened, at THE SUPREME COURT:
Was this law on the books in 1803?" he asks.
"Texas wasn't a state in 1803," offers Rosenthal.
"Good question!" applauds Scalia. "Don't fall into that trap!!"
Souter wonders why Texas doesn't limit sodomy among heterosexuals. "Because it can lead to marriage and procreation," says Rosenthal
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why any homosexual would run for public office in Texas, knowing he'll be charged by his opponents with being a lawbreaker. Rosenthal assures her that he could only be called a lawbreaker if he "commits that act."
The government could make loads of money selling tickets to these things.
"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."
Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."
Smith argues that this is quite different from "giving all people free rein to make sexual decisions except one small group of people." Scalia retorts, "You can put it that way. You can make it sound puritanical. But lots of laws make moral judgments. What about the laws against bigamy?"
This one's by William Rehnquist:
Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or some conduct. That's why people regulate."
I love this one:
Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."
But this is my absolute favorite from the prosector from Texas:
"You are not homosexual if you commit one homosexual act,"
Here is one from the bastion of gay, Scalia:
"You think there is public approval of homosexuality?"
Here's the headscratching answer from Texas's prosector:
"There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity."
Texas has some great prosecutors:
Rosenthal says there's a good place to draw the line of privacy and fundamental rights, and that line is "at the bedroom door."
"But the line is at the bedroom door in this case!" yelps Breyer.
This exchange actually happened, at THE SUPREME COURT:
Was this law on the books in 1803?" he asks.
"Texas wasn't a state in 1803," offers Rosenthal.
"Good question!" applauds Scalia. "Don't fall into that trap!!"
Souter wonders why Texas doesn't limit sodomy among heterosexuals. "Because it can lead to marriage and procreation," says Rosenthal
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why any homosexual would run for public office in Texas, knowing he'll be charged by his opponents with being a lawbreaker. Rosenthal assures her that he could only be called a lawbreaker if he "commits that act."
The government could make loads of money selling tickets to these things.