Our tribe does not permit this; tabu.

[substitute]

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/march.html#02-102

Grab a pot of coffee and Acrobat reader and have yourself a big bowl of sexual politics. The Amicus Curiae response in favor of the Texas sodomy law are some fine reading, brought to me courtesy the Psychoceramics mailing list.

Personally I'm not interested in having any sodomy in Texas or elsewhere, so it's academic for me. But I'm fascinated by the loopy reasoning some people have for wanting to prohibit it by law.

Comments

[loose-joints.livejournal.com]

I read a law review article that was published shortly after the Bowers v. Hardwick decision that basically said that, at the time, sodomy laws encompassed oral sex between consenting adults of the opposite sex, but it was only enforced against homosexual men engaged in whatever sort of sex that happened to be having.

I wish I had more time this morning to read all the Amicus briefs. Perchance, I will read them this evening and have a better grasp on the issues. It should be an interesting case because after the Bowers v. Hardwick decision there was a case called Romer v. Evans in which the Supreme Court basically said that descriminating against people becausee they are gay or lesbian was uncool. In his vitriolic dissent, Scalia cited the Bowers decision and basically claimed that the Romer decision flew in the face of that precedent and then went on to compare homosexuals to pedophiles and murderers and also made it clear that the good people of Colorado had every right to deplore the gay folk's obviously deplorable behavior. And people wonder why he scares me. Sheesh. It's more complicated than that, but I have to go to work now.