Now THIS is a Landmark

But it was the typo in the picture's caption that caught my eye:
"Historic day for gay Anericans"
Is that supposed to be short for "Anal Americans"?

What suprises me is CT's dissent. I thought he would be all over the sodomy.

That's fucking great! If gay people in our homophobic, religious fundamentalist, racist, bigoted society still have to be harassed and demeaned in our popular culture, at least they can no longer be deemed criminals as well. This decision has been a long time in coming and hopefully will open the door for the recognition of gay marriages sometime in the next, oh, hundred years or so. However, this just affirms my belief that Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist (who I am deeply ashamed to say is, according to my grandparents, a not-so-distant relative of mine) are the worst and most partisan and personally motivated justices ever, with the least regard for the true meaning of the Court and the Constitution. They make me sick. *blaugghhh*

oh, you quists are all the same.

same-sex marriage was the topic of my con law final last month. oddly enough, a large portion of my analysis dealt with the commerce clause. don't worry, kristina, you'll understand a year from now.

anyway, i think there's a big difference between gay marriage and sodomy. prohibiting states from criminalizing private activity is one thing. compelling states to grant legal recognition to things isn't something the Court is likely to do.

but in a cultural sense the ruling could strengthen the forces fighting for gay marriage on the state level. but i'm inclined to think it'll have the opposite effect. remember, there was no pro-life movement before roe v. wade, so today's ruling could easily set off a bunch of rabid anti-gay groups and bring homosexuality to the forefront of the culture wars (if it isn't there already). between this and canada's new gay marriage laws i imagine you'll see a lot of right-wing homophobes arming themselves for political warfare over the next few years.

Ah Holohan, I argue that your analysis about the duty to recognize gay marriage is flawed. Today's opinion is merely a step along the way to de-stigmatizing "gayness". One inevitable step down the line will be for some state to voluntarily grant recognition to gay marriage. At that point my old friend the full faith and credit clause will jump in and force even Scalia and Thomas to require every state to recogize and protect gay marriages. Constitutional Law final be damned, this is the issue. Commerce Clause is weak compared to the mighty Full Faith and Credit Clause.

End legal missive.

full faith and credit clause? what the hell is that? we didn't learn that in con law.

incidentally, i'm reading scalia's dissent and he's using the ruling as a platform to attack roe v. wade. is there anything he can't do?

John, you were right. Thomas is all over the sodomy:

"If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources." (THOMAS, J., dissenting)

As for the marriage issue, O'Connor has this to say in her concurrence:

"Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage." (O'CONNOR, J., concurring)

So she, at least, seems to think that marriage laws aren't endangered by the Lawrence ruling. But Scalia disagrees:

"This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. JUSTICE O�CONNOR seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that 'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is a legitimate state interest. But 'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State�s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas�s interest in �21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: 'preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.' In the jurisprudence JUSTICE O�CONNOR has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as 'preserving the traditions of society' (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as 'expressing moral disapproval (bad)." (SCALIA, J., dissenting)(emphasis in original, citations omitted).

This is all fascinating stuff. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

"today's ruling could easily set off a bunch of rabid anti-gay groups and bring homosexuality to the forefront of the culture wars (if it isn't there already)"

Those rabid anti-gay groups will be rabidly anti-gay no matter what. The nice thing about this ruling (besides decriminalizing consensual sex, which is always a good thing)is that it gives those groups an easy way to embarrass themselves. I mean, you don't hear the plaintiffs in this case arguing how wonderful, fun, and blessed is the act of gay anal intercourse. But the most extreme right-wingers seem to LOVE to talk about a sex act that they loath. My friend Eric used to say, and I use this phrase a lot, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Remember Roy Cohn.

i agree that there's already rampant anti-gay sentiment. my point is that supreme court rulings have a way of polarizing people even further, so after today's ruling and the publicity that will follow a lot of people who are currently just sitting around hating gays will actually get up and do something about it.

i'm not saying the ruling is a bad thing. it's a great thing. it should have happened 17 years ago. i was seriously euphoric all morning. i'm just being my normal cynical self and telling y'all what to watch out for.

don't say i didn't warn you.

decriminalizing Consenting sex for pay between any sex.
It is so stupid that we are living in the year 2003 and we are allowing out government officals to spend money on consenting adults having sex, while real crimnals run free. I read somewhere that the only one to stop this is to change the laws and the only way to do this is to get a petition together.
Any ideas?