"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider whether states can punish homosexuals for having sex, a case that tests the constitutionality of sodomy laws in 13 states.

The justices will review the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

The Supreme Court has struggled with how much protection the Constitution offers in the bedroom. The court ruled 5-4 in 1986 that consenting adults have no constitutional right to private homosexual sex, upholding laws that ban sodomy.

"Gay men and lesbians have been waiting for the opportunity to convince the court it should take a different view of their constitutional rights," Ruth E. Harlow, legal director of the New York-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said Monday.

The court faces several questions in the latest case. Among them: Is it an unconstitutional invasion of privacy for couples to be prosecuted for what they do in their own homes? Is it unconstitutional for states to treat gays and lesbians differently by punishing them for having sex while allowing heterosexual couples to engage in the same acts without penalties?

Sodomy is defined as abnormal sex, in some states including anal and oral sex. Nine states ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. In addition, Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma punish only homosexual sodomy.

States argue that the laws, some dating back more than 100 years, are intended to preserve public morals. The laws are rarely enforced.

Lawyers for John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner said the men were bothering no one in 1998 when they were arrested in Lawrence's apartment, jailed overnight and later fined under Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law, which classifies anal or oral sex between two men or two women as deviate sexual intercourse.

The men's lawyers said the convictions would prevent them from getting certain jobs, and would in some states require them to register as sex offenders. They were arrested after police responded to a false report of an armed intruder in Lawrence's apartment. Police entered the unlocked apartment and found the men having sex.

Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges.

"The idea that a state may enter into American bedrooms and closely inspect the most intimate and private physical interactions ... is a stark affront to fundamental liberty that the court should end," said Harlow, one of the men's lawyers.

Harlow said in court filings that the latest census found more than 600,000 households of same-sex partners in America, including about 43,000 in Texas. She said the Texas law treats gays as second-class citizens.

William Delmore III, an assistant district attorney in Texas, said people who don't like the law should take it up with the Texas Legislature, not courts.

He said homosexual sodomy has been considered criminal behavior for centuries. The conduct "could not conceivably have achieved the status of a fundamental right in the brief period of 16 years" since the Supreme Court last reviewed it, Delmore wrote in the state's court papers.

Over the past decade, state courts have blocked sodomy laws in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, and Tennessee. A Louisiana appeals court recently upheld that state's 197-year-old law banning all oral and anal sex.

Delmore said the Texas law does not just target gays and lesbians. He said it also could be used for bisexuals and heterosexuals "who are tempted to engage in homosexual conduct." The law is part of Texas' "communal belief that the conduct is wrong and should be discouraged," he wrote in a filing.

In a brief supporting Texas, the California-based Pro Family Law Center said states should be given leeway to protect the public from the spread of diseases like AIDS.

Civil rights groups including the Human Rights Campaign urged the court to intervene, saying the laws are responsible for "stigmatizing gays and lesbians as outlaws" and "contribute to an atmosphere of hatred and violence" against gays.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102."

To anyone who claims that we are asking for "special" rights, let me make the point clear. We aren't asking for "special" rights, just EQUAL rights. Why should we be singled out and punished for the same consentual "acts" that the mainstream heterosexual public engage in?

If I'm in my own home and engaging in any consentual act that does not harm anyone, why is it anybody's business, especially the governments?

And AIDS/HIV isn't a gay disease. It's a human disease that affects those in all social and economical classes.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

AMEN Supa

Much love Pochacco

I agree with you Superfunky I believe in equal rights and this Disease is a Disease that has affected Straights also. This issue has got to be Addressed. We need a cure for Aids and we need Legislation for Gay Rights.

Natasha said:

Natasha...I officially love you!

Sometimes I wonder about these sodomy laws...calling it homosexual conduct...puhleeze!

Peace supa and to all the gay Orgers you have my support. I feel for you and your issues and I'm with ya all the way.

This is so fucked up. It's no ones business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. It's outragous that ANY people are denied a basic human need based only on orientation.
Love and lust should be able to be expressed by any consenting adults.
Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple that I've known for most of my life and I can't imagine it being AGAINST THE LAW for them to express their love/affection and attraction for one another.
It makes me so mad!

It's archaic for gay people to be treated differently from hetero people, absolutely ridiculous.they've recently amended the laws in Britain, i don't have the specifics to hand but from what i read total equal rights for gay folk is not that far away in this country.

hopefully your government will wise up and realise gays are people, first and foremost.

+ Equality.

If they uphold this, it will be a serious blow to credibility of the court. I mean, who can read the following and laugh their head off?

"A Louisiana appeals court recently upheld that state's 197-year-old law banning all oral and anal sex. "
[This message was edited Mon Dec 2 14:45:49 PST 2002 by Aerogram]

Thecherryloon said:

Yep, reading this thread makes me SO glad that I live in Britain as a gay man rather than in the U.S.
The Government here is now trying to ban the word 'homosexual' when used in official documents because it's considered to be offensive. And I do agree with that - it's such a clinical and labelling thing (straight people are never pointed out as 'heterosexuals' in official documents). And, as Thecherryloon has pointed out, if all goes well, in Britain we'll soon be able to have our same sex partners recognised as legal next of kin. That has such a lot of weight attached to it.

The state of Minnesota recently removed all sodomy laws from our books (last year or so?). It was obviously considered a huge win for our gay community, but I think it's a huge win for everyone. Who wants to live in a place where the government is concerned with what I or my neighbor is doing in our bedrooms (or living rooms, or kitchens, etc )? This has GOT to be passed on a national level!!

I've got my fingers crossed for this one!!

It's depressing that ANYONE should
have to fight just to get equal rights
on ANY issue in this day and age.

\/OO/\/\S

CarrieMpls said:

by the way...with the recent turn of events from the election, the language including GLBT folks in our states human rights laws is prolly gonna be attacked/overturned...so sad

ps...co-sign to just about everything already said in this thread...this is gonna be a very interesting case