Talk:Lawrence v. Texas/Archive 3

Misquotation

In reading the opinion, I see that Justice Scalia mentions "criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity." and *not* as the article says:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices.

Unless this is backed by some part of the report (which I did not read--I only read the transcript available of the opinion reading), then this is a grave misquotation. Citing (what seems like) obvious absurdities such as Scalia's supposed mention of "State laws against [...] masturbation" would then serve only to discredit the article!!

I have no dared make the change, but I invite anybody that sees no objection to do so.

--87.231.174.183 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there was an erroneous case citation under the section on Scalia's dissent. The case Owens v State had little to do with the constitutional right to pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations. Although, I may be misinformed, will someone check to see if there is in fact a case called Owens v State that does deal with the topic at hand. The cases that I found had to do with writ of certiorari and circumstantial evidence in convictions. Could someon in the know please clarify if there was an Owens v State decision that had to do with the constitutional right to sexual intercourse, and in which state this ruling derived from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHW00 (talk • contribs)

From Scalia's dissent: Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”). -- Cat Whisperer 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Concern - Broader Implications

"Homosexual rights proponents believe that, Lawrence explicitly analogized homosexual sodomy and heterosexual intercourse, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them."

Am I the only one who thinks this passage has NPOV issues? Technogeek 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't think the majority and O'Connor opinions could be any clearer, at least as far as what their stated intent concerned. You might not believe that they'll actually do what they say they would do, but they did say it. (Of course, O'Connor's no longer on the court.) --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring more to the choice of tone in that rather than the specific statements. Perhaps NPOV wasn't the right term. Could also use a serious grammatical rework -- I think I saw a run-on sentence that lasted longer than that time I had to sit through Battlefield Earth. Technogeek 05:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing about this statement that bothers me is that it begins, "homosexual rights proponents believe..." I don't think all gay rights lawyers or activists are all jumping into this particular line of reasoning. Furthermore, isn’t the concept about the inevitability of gay marriage arising out of Lawrence a kind of distillation of Scalia's slippery slope dissent from the majority opinion --and not so much what gay right supporters themselves have stated? It seems a little convoluted. It's also a run-on sentence, as was previously stated.--Erin1983 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor's Argument Against Scalia Deleted

I deleted this sentence -- "It's obvious to note that no specific words in the Bill of Rights granted a right to heterosexual or inter-racial sexual conduct, which of the latter was criminal for 120 years in some states" -- after the quote from Scalia's 2006 speech (section "The Dissents," next to last paragraph). This sort of editorial arguing against a public figure quoted seems contrary to Wikipedia neutrality standards. The point is a valid one, though; if it can be attributed to some source or authority, it might appropriately be restored. Severus Censor, 15 September 2006.

Thank you to MZMcBride for major cleanup done yesterday. ---Axios023 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Scalia is a narrow-minded, bigoted, hatemongering disgrace to the judicial system, let alone the high court. That is FACT, although it's impossible to prove, and seems like opinion. (It is certainly opinion, but some opinions are also facts.) I wonder what would constitute a suitable "source or authority" sufficient to quote me (besides me)? God, perhaps? He is an embarrassment: a bitter old man with antediluvian opinions and attitudes that are inherently arbitrary, unjust and oppressive. Put that in your Wikipedia and smoke it. (Smiles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FA status

I'm sad to see this article lose its FA status - for reasons that are not that compelling in my view. However, let's see if we can improve it. I've just reworked the lead, and I think it is now crisper and more accurate. Anyone else want to pitch in? Metamagician3000 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, some historical claims need to be attributed/cited, and the prose needs some cleaning up. I can do some of the latter, but whoever put in those claims really needs to provide support for them. Metamagician3000 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some claims need to be cited? The fact that this article hardly has any cites at all clearly disqualifies it as an "A-class" article, much less a feature article. Has the requirement for citations and references in Wikipedia article been dropped all of a sudden, or have they simply been forgotten? Iamcuriousblue 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge in Matthew Limon

I believe that, in light of lack of further notable developments regarding Matthew Limon, that Limon is no longer sufficiently notable by himself to warrant an article; therefore, I suggest merging in Limon into this article. Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here; this article is about Lawrence v. Texas, not Kansas v. Limon. How about merging Matthew Limon to Sodomy laws in the United States instead? -- Cat Whisperer 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose, and I do think Limon v. Kansas merits its own article, although Limon himself perhaps does not. The legal issues are distinct, and the Limon case is notable in its own right. SS451 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SS451's reasoning : Merge with Limon v. Kansas . Queerudite 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, but there is no Limon v. Kansas article. That would need to be created in order for Matthew Limon to be merged. HalJor 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree it should be merged somewhere, but this page is not that somewhere. If someone makes the Limon v. Kansas page, merge it there. Kolindigo 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above consensus. I oppose proposed merger. However, I do support move and expand for the Matthew Limon article. Move that article to a newly created "Limon v. Kansas" article, than expand the article to be mainly about the case. Only minimal biographical info will be needed about Matthew Limon as part of this article, since this individual is not notable apart from this case. BTW, I've made the same argument favoring merging the Jake Baker article into United States v. Baker, so if anybody here wants to weigh in, please do. Iamcuriousblue 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence's possible effects on heterosexual sodomy

Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It may also invalidate laws against heterosexual sodomy based solely on morality concerns.

I think the second sentence above, found in the page intro, is grammatically misleading. Perhaps the author's meaning would be clarified by saying "It may also invalidate laws against heterosexual sodomy that are based solely on morality concerns." This is important because otherwise the sentence implies that the invalidation of anti-sodomy laws rests on morality concerns, rather than that these laws were formulated to address morality concerns. In fact, the invalidation of these laws under the precedent of Lawrence would rest on the same liberty concerns that underlie Lawrence. Feliciapatch 15:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Demotion from A-class to B-class

Quite simply, this article has almost no citations or references. That makes it a "B-class" article, tops, and possibly only "Start-class". Iamcuriousblue 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Prior case law" needs total rewrite

Not a single source, and appears highly POV/OR, bringing in points of dubious relevance such as no-fault divorce. I think the best thing to do would be to just start it from scratch. Unless anyone objects (for a good reason), I'm going to delete it in the meantime.

Dybryd 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are similar problems with the "Broader Implications" section. Dybryd 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Broader Implications

I agree Dybryd, and tried to break this section into the speculative (which could still be supported by reference to legal scholars who have interpreted this case) and those theories which have been cited by subsequent cases. I made a new subsequent case section, which only has one totally unsupported extension of Lawrence.--Tinned Elk 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rational Basis? Griswold's part here

This article is full of justification of Rational Basis as the correct scrutiny to be used here, but I find that odd for 2 reasons: • It's only endorsed by the dissent, but it appears in the majority opinion and the concurring opinion section. • Since L v T is on the books as the majority, the current law is that the liberty interest is subject to Griswold/Roe strict scrutiny, but Griswold is barely mentioned in the article (once to the "uncommonly silly" line and only from the dissent in this case to the dissenters in that one). My point put shorter? The Wiki should let a reader walk away with the current case law to be class A, and this article doesn't

Overall, feels like a case of a dissenting opinion trying to be overly justified. Lasvegasgamer 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I am new to Wikipedia, this was my first edit, but I was wondering why I was editing Scalia comments in the majority opinion section. But I didn't want to mess with the article too much so I left the section there. :-) SwampratNO 04:20, 21 November 2007