Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lawrences Loopholes
Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Courts decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Courts decision:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:
Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]
State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters
Lets look at that again:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."
The case DOES involve two adults having consentual sex. Did you see that? In other words, sodomy is not illegal.
Let's read the next paragraph case in point and that last part The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence
Another lie. You claimed that sodomy is illegal. And you claimed aggravated sodomy and statutory sodomy are the same as sodomy. And that is something a cop would know the difference in.
It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?
Continued Enforcement
Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.
In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the states Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature or Gross Indecency laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:
Lawrences Loopholes
Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Courts decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Courts decision:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:
Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]
State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters
No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.
Lets look at that again:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle."
The case DOES involve two adults having consentual sex. Did you see that? In other words, sodomy is not illegal.
Let's read the next paragraph case in point and that last part The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
The case is clear about two consenting adults. What is up for grabs is about minors or prostitutes ect.
Sodomy between consenting adults is not illegal.
It is illegal haven't I proven that already? or do you have too much cum covering your eyes?
Continued Enforcement
Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.
In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the states Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature or Gross Indecency laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:
Lawrences Loopholes
Several state legislatures and courts have attempted to exploit loopholes in the Supreme Courts decision in Lawrence v. Texas in order to continue enforcing laws criminalizing homosexuality. At the end of the majority opinion in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote a paragraph outlining the parameters of the Supreme Courts decision:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. [emphasis added]
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence, especially when dealing with prostitution and sex with minors. As Joseph Wardenski, a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote:
Despite the Lawrence majority's broad themes of equality and dignity for gay men and lesbians, several commentators have argued that the decision's scope is much less expansive. Indeed, in several early decisions applying Lawrence, courts have interpreted the decision quite narrowly. The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence. [Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 95 No. 4, 6/22/05, via Nexis]
State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans | Equality Matters
No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.
Correct.
The paragraph from Lawrence is taken out of context, Justice Kennedy was merely confirming that laws preventing sex with minors, the mentally incompetent, or prostitution are Constitutional and may remain valid; whereas laws criminalizing homosexuality are un-Constitutional and invalid.
There is no loophole.
Let's read the next paragraph case in point and that last part The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
The case is clear about two consenting adults. What is up for grabs is about minors or prostitutes ect.
Sodomy between consenting adults is not illegal.
What was the purpose of the Lawrence case?
No, you have only shown that bigots are harrassing gays using invalid laws.
Correct.
The paragraph from Lawrence is taken out of context, Justice Kennedy was merely confirming that laws preventing sex with minors, the mentally incompetent, or prostitution are Constitutional and may remain valid; whereas laws criminalizing homosexuality are un-Constitutional and invalid.
There is no loophole.
Horse shit Why are people still being arrested? and why has anyone sued for being arrested?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
The case is clear about two consenting adults. What is up for grabs is about minors or prostitutes ect.
Sodomy between consenting adults is not illegal.
What was the purpose of the Lawrence case?
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
If you read this what would it mean if it was used to limit the scope of Lawrence?Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
The case is clear about two consenting adults. What is up for grabs is about minors or prostitutes ect.
Sodomy between consenting adults is not illegal.
What was the purpose of the Lawrence case?
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence
What would that mean?The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence.
Did it also say people were still being arrested? You don't have to add anything other than yes or no.Correct.
The paragraph from Lawrence is taken out of context, Justice Kennedy was merely confirming that laws preventing sex with minors, the mentally incompetent, or prostitution are Constitutional and may remain valid; whereas laws criminalizing homosexuality are un-Constitutional and invalid.
There is no ‘loophole.’
Horse shit Why are people still being arrested? and why has anyone sued for being arrested?
The article you posted was pressing for laws to be removed, so showing victorious lawsuits would have gone againts the purpose of the article. I have no doubt there are lawsuits happening.
People are still being arrested because cops can still be assholes and ignore the ruling of the SCOTUS. As the article said, even if there is no criminal record or conviction, there are hassles for the defendants.
Did it also say people were still being arrested?Horse shit Why are people still being arrested? and why has anyone sued for being arrested?
The article you posted was pressing for laws to be removed, so showing victorious lawsuits would have gone againts the purpose of the article. I have no doubt there are lawsuits happening.
People are still being arrested because cops can still be assholes and ignore the ruling of the SCOTUS. As the article said, even if there is no criminal record or conviction, there are hassles for the defendants.
What was the purpose of the Lawrence case?
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
If you read this what would it mean if it was used to limit the scope of Lawrence?What was the purpose of the Lawrence case?
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
This paragraph has been the source of a great amount of ambiguity for those attempting to determine the constitutionality of state sodomy laws. It is frequently cited by state and lower federal courts in order to attempt to limit the scope of Lawrence
And then we have this in the last paragraph of what I quoted
What would that mean?The Court itself has thus far declined to weigh in on the correct reach of Lawrence.
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?
Did it also say people were still being arrested?The article you posted was pressing for laws to be removed, so showing victorious lawsuits would have gone againts the purpose of the article. I have no doubt there are lawsuits happening.
People are still being arrested because cops can still be assholes and ignore the ruling of the SCOTUS. As the article said, even if there is no criminal record or conviction, there are hassles for the defendants.
Yes, the article did say that. It said they were being arrested despite the SCOTUS ruling that technically invalidated the anti-sodomy laws. So people are being arrested for violating invalid laws. People being arrested is not the benchmark for whether something is illegal.
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?
Irrelevant. Start that as a new topic if that is your obsession.
Lawrence v. Texas was about equal protection under the law. Lawrence and his partner were arrested for sexual acts that had been declared illegal when between same sex couples, but legal when between opposite sex couples. (or at least that was the way they were prosecuted) And it was about whether these laws were an invasion of privacy and liberty.
That is why SCOTUS ruled as they did. The anti-sodomy laws were an invasion of privacy, a removal of liberty, and showed inequality between straights and gays under the law.
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?
Did it also say people were still being arrested?
Yes, the article did say that. It said they were being arrested despite the SCOTUS ruling that technically invalidated the anti-sodomy laws. So people are being arrested for violating invalid laws. People being arrested is not the benchmark for whether something is illegal.
Why did you delete part of my post?
And the state of Texas failed to establish a compelling rationale or evidence in support of its sodomy laws. They were thus invalidated accordingly, along with similar laws in other states.
Just like brothers having sex with their sisters gay sex is is not normal. Shall you also be supportive of brothers and sister marriages?
Of course not.
For the 756th time: laws banning marriage between brother and sister are Constitutional because theyre applied to everyone equally, the state can provide evidence in support of its ban on brother/sister marriage, and such bans are enacted absent animus.
That is not the case with regard to same-sex couples access to marriage law.
Yes, the article did say that. It said they were being arrested despite the SCOTUS ruling that technically invalidated the anti-sodomy laws. So people are being arrested for violating invalid laws. People being arrested is not the benchmark for whether something is illegal.
Why did you delete part of my post?
I didn't. You must have gone back and added that. I quoted it as you posted it the first time.
Not that it would have mattered. I am not limiting myself to yes or no answers when there is more I wish to say.
