whats with these anti-sodomy laws?

Question

What me and my wife do in our bedroom is no ones business but our own!

Answer 1

Arianna, I agree with you about giving it time and eventually all the old-school bigots will die off; BUT, if they tinker with the constitution then we are screwed.

Now to answer the question, these anti-sodomy laws are a direct result of Karl Rove's strategy that he has admitted btw, of using hate to win elections. In this Frontline show called The Architect, it discusses this and how his favorite hate issue that he likes to use to motivate ppl to vote is gay rights.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/

What I am saying is that when a person keeps feeding this type of hate messages into society (since the 70s), eventually laws like this start popping up. And trust me, it is only going to get worse because hate is like a disease that spreads and infects everybody.

Next there will be an actual alteration to the constitution then at some point there will have to be a specific amendment defining what a homosexual actually is.... oral and anal sex....

Sure hope you and your wife like the missionary position a whole lot. :)

Answer 2

Unless the state legislature says that they will ban it. At that point it will become a matter of how often can you violate that law without being caught. The answer to that question will probably be 100% of the time.

~~~~~~~
Coragryph:

Lawrence v. Texas had two constitutional theories: 1) substantive due process, and 2) equal protection.

1) Substantive due process is total bullcr--. Did O.W. Holmes believe in substantive due process? Did Hugo L. Black believe in substantive due process? Did John Hart Ely believe in substantive due process? In Lawrence they repeated the statement (previously made in 1992) "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Whatta load of deceitfulness and hypocrisy. A mountain of it.
2) Equal protection: Did Justice Anthony Kennedy even purport to apply the "rational basis standard"? The sodomy SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD if there was any rational link between the Texas law's discrimination against homosexuals (my kind of men) and any legitimate state interest -- such as codifying a moral standard or preventing the spread of AIDS.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's goal in Lawrence v. Texas was NOT to tell the truth about either the Constitution or precedent. His goal was to fan the flames of cultural war. He hoped that that decision would re-elect Bush and it did.

Answer 3

Correct. And as of 2003, none of those laws are valid.

The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that private intimate acts between consenting adults were not subject to govt regulation or criminal penalty.

{EDIT to MarkD, short version} It is still possible to fail Rational Basis review, where there is no valid state interest being asserted. I agree with the court that the state has no legitimate interest in enforcing abstract standards of morality in private consensual relationships. Therefore, the law is not rational under either prong of the analysis.

"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Substantive Due Process is the essence of the 9th Amendment, even if never mentioned as such, and the guarantee of personal liberty is the heart of the constitution. Such shining examples upholding liberty should be cherished, not denigrated.

Answer 4

Sheltered people are just scared of the idea of gay and lebian couples, usually older, sheltered people. Just give it time, and eventually, the majority of those who are against it will die (of natural causes or otherwise).
Like all ideas that do not harm people in the long run, this one will eventually be accepted. It is just inevitable.