Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
Much like the California law against eating oranges in the bathtub, it was one of those laws that was just on the books. The state of Texas said sodomy was illegal, but it was rare anyone actually faced court action for such acts.
That all changed when John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested, jailed and fined in accordance with Texas State Penal Code for having “deviate sexual intercourse” in Lawrence’s apartment.
This law, which is upheld in some variation in 13 states, goes too far in regulating the lives of Americans. In the upcoming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide if the government can regulate activities between two consenting adults in the bedroom using this case. Both Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest and were ordered to pay a $200 fine for this “crime.” Police found them having sex while answering a neighbor’s bogus report of a disruption in their apartment, in effect turning the two in.
While being gay is often construed as sinful, giving homosexuals rights has little to do with religion or faith. These kinds of issues have everything to do with the freedoms the United States stands for.
U.S. citizens have rights such as the freedom of speech, the right to be treated fairly no matter what gender or race they happen to be and the right to believe in whatever faith they choose.
While gay rights are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, neither were rights for women or minorities at first.
Following this pattern, people should be allowed to be able to have sexual relations as they choose, regardless if someone else thinks they are “deviant” or not.
On campus and in the country, homosexuals are a minority. It’s hard to put a label on this group. Some display their orientation, some hide it. Some are reckless, some are responsible members of the community. But in the end, they are U.S. citizens should not be controlled by the government. The current statutes have too many flaws.
First, sodomy laws regulate moral choices. No one is being hurt or abused when two people of the same gender decide to have sex. This might be against social norms or religious beliefs, but people must have the right to choose a partner.
Also, this law is highly unenforceable. The only reason Lawrence and Gardner were caught is because a neighbor told the police a different offense was happening in the apartment. If the Supreme Court refuses to make these 13 states change the laws regarding sodomy, then police will have to be able to execute the law.
But there is really no feasible way to do this. Standing outside gay bars waiting for a couple to emerge or peeking into random windows at night, which lacks probable cause are, measures that sound more like the Gestapo and less like “liberty and justice for all.”
Another flaw are the sentencing options. In 2000, 18 year-old Matthew Limon was sentenced to 17 years in a Kansas state prison for having oral sex with a minor of the same gender. If Limon and a female minor had done the same thing, Limon would have faced a maximum of 15 months.
Limon and the minor were found in Limon’s bedroom by a police officer.
Limon used poor judgment and committed a crime by having relations with a minor. However, there should not be such a difference in sentencing based on what genders are involved.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has had a chance to reverse the sodomy law.
In 1986, Bowers v. Hardwick challenged the law after Hardwick was found engaged in sodomy by a police officer.
The Supreme Court decided that the Georgia statute could stand and the men involved in this case could be prosecuted. However, the vote was close — 5 to 4.
So this time around the Court can decide to end this law that infringes on individual’s privacy.
No matter what we believe is morally correct, the Supreme Court should allow citizens to conduct themselves as they choose in the bedrooms of their homes.
Submitted April 03, 2003
MALIBU, CA
