Taking a look at Lawrence v. Texas
May. 23rd, 2008 09:09 pmThe other day I happened to look up Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling that struck down all the sodomy laws in the country, and probably the bit that made my eye twitch the most was the fact that prior to this ruling, someone who was caught having relations with a person of the same sex (even in their own home) had to register as a sex offender.
*twitch twitch twitch* That's just... Jesus. Putting someone having a consensual relationship with another adult on the same level as a child molester? WTF, Texas?! Does not compute. I don't care what your moral opinions are, doing that to anyone is just wrong under the law. If they did that to straight people who were caught in the act there would be rioting in the streets.
Thank you, U.S. Supreme Court, for striking that one down. That and it had multiple problems as far as the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments go. Granted, Lawrence can't really be used to work for gay marriage since they expressly left the implications of legal recognition of relationship out of their opinion (on purpose in the case of O'Connor), but it does say that gay people have the right to pursue relationships in their private lives without interference for the government. I certainly don't want to live in a society that tells two consenting adults that what they do in their private lives is illegal, and I don't care what your orientation is.
*twitch twitch twitch* That's just... Jesus. Putting someone having a consensual relationship with another adult on the same level as a child molester? WTF, Texas?! Does not compute. I don't care what your moral opinions are, doing that to anyone is just wrong under the law. If they did that to straight people who were caught in the act there would be rioting in the streets.
Thank you, U.S. Supreme Court, for striking that one down. That and it had multiple problems as far as the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments go. Granted, Lawrence can't really be used to work for gay marriage since they expressly left the implications of legal recognition of relationship out of their opinion (on purpose in the case of O'Connor), but it does say that gay people have the right to pursue relationships in their private lives without interference for the government. I certainly don't want to live in a society that tells two consenting adults that what they do in their private lives is illegal, and I don't care what your orientation is.