The Supremes on privacy

1 Comment

Fascinating: the Supreme Court has struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law, on grounds other than what I would've expected. I'm delighted, but surprised.

Six out of nine justices agree that the law is "an unconstitutional violation of privacy," according to the article. Clarence Thomas, one of the dissenters, disagreed with that aspect of the decision:

Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he cannot agree to strike it down because he finds no general right to privacy in the Constitution.

(I'm glad to hear that silliness is not, in itself, unconstitutional.)

What I was expecting, though perhaps I was way offbase in expecting this, was that the Supremes would rule that anti-gay-sodomy laws were unconstitutional on the grounds that they treated people unequally; that would allow the nine states with equal-opportunity anti-sodomy laws to keep them. (Remember, if you live in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, or Virginia, it may be illegal for you to have oral or anal sex, regardless of the sex of your partner.)

I continue to be pleased, by and large, with the Supreme Court. I'm looking forward to reading the various opinions on this at some point; the article's vague, but it sounds like some of those who voted to overturn the law may not have done so on privacy grounds.

You can always count on good old Scalia (who dissented) to stick to his guns:

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Nope, nothing at all against them, unless you count not wanting them to have equal protection under the law. But since they're abominations in the eyes of the Lord and not really fully human, that's understandable, right?

Sorry, I'm getting snide, and this was meant to be a celebratory entry. So: go, Supremes!

One Response to “The Supremes on privacy”

  1. Vardibidian

    I haven’t yet read the case, but in the past, one of Scalia’s arguments against overturning anti-gay-sex laws has been that they are not, in fact, discriminatory; they prevent everybody from engaging in homosexual sex. The fact that some people wouldn’t have homosexual sex if they were paid, and others would gladly pay to do so, has no bearing on the law, you see. Similarly, both rich people and poor people are prohibited from panhandling in certain areas.

    I vastly prefer the privacy basis. If there is (and it seems that five Supremes say there is) a constitutional right to privacy, then there is a realm of consensual acts that the State needs a damned good reason to regulate. If the law is struck down on the basis of inequality, then the State can continue to regulate them, as long as it does so equally. How big that realm is, and what it covers, is and will be open to argument, but its very existence has been open to argument, and now it does appear to exist.

    Thanks,
    -Vardibidian.

    reply

Join the Conversation