Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

An event mentioned in this article is a June 26 selected anniversary

I am struck by Scalia's comment that "State laws against ...masturbation... are ... sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices." Does any state still have a law against masturbation on its books? -- Someone else 02:43 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No U.S. state has ever, at any time in history, had a law against (solitary, private) masturbation. Scalia just seems to set himself up for ridicule sometimes. -- Cjmnyc 07:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Wow! Thanks to everyone for creating such a great article on this! I just got back from a 4-day field study and found out - from Wikipedia - that my whole world has changed (and will likely change a great deal more very soon). --mav 02:26 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I've added an article about Bowers v. Hardwick. I figured if it's being referred to so much, there should be an article on the topic. -- Cjmnyc 07:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reporter Citations

While I recognize that the GPO has yet to get out the U.S. Reports volume that would include this case and there is no citation to it, this article should include the cites to the case in the Lawyer's Edition and the Supreme Court Reporter. PedanticallySpeaking 14:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Western civilization"

There's a note at the end of this article that the Supremes' citation of a decision by the European Court of Human Rights is an example of potential foreign influence over US law. But isn't the point just that backers of the sodomy law said that "Western civilization" uniformly condemns homosexuality, and that Europe is part of Western civilization, so that assertion is therefore wrong? It's not cited as a precedent, just as a data point.

--Jfruh 16:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deviate vs. Deviant

Is the following quotation correct:

"engage in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"?

Acegikmo1 00:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deviant is correct [1] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Disruptive"

A recent edit refers to the decision as "disruptive", without elaboration. This may be confusing to some readers. Conservatives tend to use "disruptive" as a term of criticism, but there's another side to the story. We could perhaps allude to the existence of different points of view by adding something like, "similar to the way that Brown v. Board of Education was disruptive." Leaving the unadorned "disruptive" as it now stands doesn't seem appropriate, though. JamesMLane 04:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If indeed, homosexual marriage ultimately becomes legal as a consequence of the precident set by this case, that would without question, "disrupt" the ordinary traditions and norms of marriage nationwide. Given that marriage is a fundemental societal organization principle in USA, any major changes to it would inarguably "disrupt" the previous standards. There is no arguing this point and the terminology is not POV. Also, I explcitly reject the racist attempt to equate behavior with race. Sexual activity is a behavior, race is not. Race is inarguably immutable. On the other hand, the debate about homsexuality being ingrained or adopted is an open question. Comparing this case to Brown is a disgusting and unfair affront to Blacks. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page, after 4 reverts apiece (or possibly more, I'm not entirely sure). Hash it out here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)