Talk:Lawrence v. Texas/Archive 1

Miscellaneous comments
I am struck by Scalia's comment that "State laws against ...masturbation... are ... sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices." Does any state still have a law against masturbation on its books? -- Someone else 02:43 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No U.S. state has ever, at any time in history, had a law against (solitary, private) masturbation. Scalia just seems to set himself up for ridicule sometimes. -- Cjmnyc 07:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- Wow! Thanks to everyone for creating such a great article on this! I just got back from a 4-day field study and found out - from Wikipedia - that my whole world has changed (and will likely change a great deal more very soon). --mav 02:26 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've added an article about Bowers v. Hardwick. I figured if it's being referred to so much, there should be an article on the topic. -- Cjmnyc 07:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reporter Citations
While I recognize that the GPO has yet to get out the U.S. Reports volume that would include this case and there is no citation to it, this article should include the cites to the case in the Lawyer's Edition and the Supreme Court Reporter. PedanticallySpeaking 14:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Western civilization"
There's a note at the end of this article that the Supremes' citation of a decision by the European Court of Human Rights is an example of potential foreign influence over US law. But isn't the point just that backers of the sodomy law said that "Western civilization" uniformly condemns homosexuality, and that Europe is part of Western civilization, so that assertion is therefore wrong? It's not cited as a precedent, just as a data point.

--Jfruh 16:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deviate vs. Deviant
Is the following quotation correct:

"engage in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex"?

Acegikmo1 00:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deviant is correct  04:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether the quotation is correct. The quotation uses "deviate", not "deviant", so what some online dictionary says is irrelevant.  Here's the relevant passage from the majority opinion, according to the Findlaw text:
 * The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."
 * The article gives what seems to be the wrong citation (§21.01 instead of the correct §21.06; the definition of "deviate" is in §21.01 but the operative language is in §21.06). There's a slight inaccuracy in that the exact quotation uses "engages" rather than "engage".  Ways to fix this:
 * ... it is a Class C misdemeanor for someone to "engage[] in deviate sexual intercourse ....
 * ... it is a Class C misdemeanor when someone "engages in deviate sexual intercourse ....
 * just leave it as it is, minor inaccuracy in the eyes of many.
 * I personally prefer #2, with #1 as my second choice. JamesMLane 06:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If a court opinion is being cited via quotation, it must be done verbatim, typo and usage errors and all. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, with the minor exception that errors might sometimes be corrected if the correction is properly flagged. Sometimes a court will write something like "The text of the statue was amended to include...." and we might assist the reader by writing "The text of the [statute] was amended to include...."  In this instance, in response to your comment that "Deviant is correct", I pointed out that Findlaw says that the opinion said "deviate".  Do we now have agreement that the article should say "deviate" not "deviant"? JamesMLane 17:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was not clear to me that the issue was a quote when I originally answered. Frankly, I am not sure what you are asking for agreement on at this point. 23:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Disruptive"
A recent edit refers to the decision as "disruptive", without elaboration. This may be confusing to some readers. Conservatives tend to use "disruptive" as a term of criticism, but there's another side to the story. We could perhaps allude to the existence of different points of view by adding something like, "similar to the way that Brown v. Board of Education was disruptive." Leaving the unadorned "disruptive" as it now stands doesn't seem appropriate, though. JamesMLane 04:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If indeed, homosexual marriage ultimately becomes legal as a consequence of the precedent set by this case, that would without question, "disrupt" the ordinary traditions and norms of marriage nationwide. Given that marriage is a fundemental societal organization principle in USA, any major changes to it would inarguably "disrupt" the previous standards. There is no arguing this point and the terminology is not POV. Also, I explcitly reject the racist attempt to equate behavior with race. Sexual activity is a behavior, race is not. Race is inarguably immutable. On the other hand, the debate about homsexuality being ingrained or adopted is an open question. Comparing this case to Brown is a disgusting and unfair affront to Blacks. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely, though, it is easy to see that the word "disruptive" is loaded with implicit meaning (intended or otherwise); to me it certainly seems POV &mdash; it implies disapproval of the potential effects of the judgement. "Important" or "significant", however, still leave the implication that the case has the potential make a fundamental change (which unarguably Lawrence vs Texas does) without implying that such a change is either good or bad (which would definitely be POV). I suggest that consensus should be found for a more neutral word and the page be unprotected; I'd suggest significant. (And we'll have to agree to disagree on a comparison with Brown :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 16:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

According to CNN.com, February 4, 2004, over 60% (that's landslide territory in elections) polled opposed "gay" marriage. Certainly, if people hold this view, then an imposition of it against voters' wishes (by the courts rather than by referendum or legislation) is indeed disruptive. Also, to "disrupt" means to "To throw into confusion or disorder". Certainly, if the advocates of gay marriage succeed in holding onto their beachhead in Massachusetts, then other states which are opposed, will have to take legally defensive positions to prevent its spread to their states. This segmentation of marriage laws will indeed "throw into confusion or disorder" the longstanding continuity of marriage in the USA. Whether this is for good or for ill is not addressed by my edit. On the other hand, by refusing to recognize that a substantial majority of USA citizens are opposed to gay marriage, certain editors here are not actually reporting the story - as it is understood by the readers. The simple fact is that "disruptive" is correct English here.

Having said all this, I would support the word "consequential" if the others here would support that. But I will not support the words "important" or "significant" as both of those words do, in my view, carrry a positive connotation quite along the lines that others have complained about "disruptive" being negative. And let's not fool ourselves; demolishing centuries of marrriage tradition at a few strokes of a court decision pen, will indeed have consequences, one way or another. 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In the (mostly Southern) states that had de jure school segregation before Brown, I'm sure you could've found far more than 60% of the people, and a much higher percentage of the registered voters, who'd oppose integration. Nor could anyone deny that Brown produced a certain amount of "disorder".  So what?  This article isn't about public attitudes toward same-sex marriage, or about the charges of disruption versus the charges of bigotry.  It isn't about how some of the same people who fought against civil rights fifty years ago also more recently fought against gay rights.  It isn't about whether, fifty years from now, those people will look like stalwart defenders of Western civilization or pig-headed reactionaries.  Those are all interesting subjects, but they're beyond this article.  This article is about the impact of Lawrence v. Texas.


 * I don't see how "important" or "significant" can be considered to endorse the decision. It's obvious that Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson and Bush v. Gore were all important decisions, even though all were, in my personal opinion, wrongly decided.  I think "important" is the best concise way to convey the point.  "Consequential" is too vague.  If any attempt to use the clear and direct "important" will produce another edit war, perhaps we'd need to be a little more wordy to spell out what is meant in a way that doesn't allow anyone to contend that there are implications no one else sees.  How about: "Some suggest that Lawrence v. Texas may eventually have a more widespread impact on society than do most decisions of the United States Supreme Court." JamesMLane 17:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, JML, I am simply amazed - you actually heard my concerns and agreed to an edit which addresses them. Now even though I feel this grossly understates what "some" are suggesting, I'd be ok with "Some suggest that Lawrence v. Texas may eventually have a more widespread impact on society than do most decisions of the United States Supreme Court.", if it keeps "important" out. Frankly, if the other editor who kept reverting me had dialoged as you are, we would not have had a revert tif. As it stands now, I would acccept your suggestion as a resolution and if adopted, would have no more current concerns with this page. PS: My father is a "man of color" and I personally am very offended at racial to sexual comparisions. They are not valid and they are demeaning. 18:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the article as it now stands: Stating that this "may eventually come to be seen as one of the more important decisions" of the Supreme Court is a valid way to start a NPOV discussion of potential future implications (as this is clearly potentially true, and reasons are give why this is likely). As far as Rex's comment goes, the valid comparison is not saying that sexual preference is immutable (like race), but rather saying that both are issues of civil rights and personal freedom. Although I see Rex's point, I think that this statement is just as offensive as saying that it is demenaing to a gay person to compare them to a person "of color." L33tminion 20:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * beautifully put. --kizzle 21:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't side track us with the race/sexuality issue. The issue here is: Will this group of editors agree to the suggested text that JamesMLane offered and which I agree with? If not, why not? And answers such as "I like the article as it now stands" don't aim towards consensus and are therefore not helpful. We need a version that everyone can agree on. I am opposed to the word "important" and I have stated editorial reasons for that. Frankly, it's possible to say that the case may eventually be seen as any number of things. The question is, are we going to insist on using "important" when it's strongly objected to? JML's suggestion of "Some suggest that Lawrence v. Texas may eventually have a more widespread impact on society than do most decisions of the United States Supreme Court." is, I feel good enough to satisfy both sides here. How about some flexibility from you, L33tminion? And PS: I did not make any comparisons - please go back and re-read. The race/sexuality point you are now addressing the reciprocal of was raised by JML, not me. 00:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected the page, after 4 reverts apiece (or possibly more, I'm not entirely sure). Hash it out here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I reverted (3) times, Neutrality (4) times, on the same point. The other edit each was the insertion (by me) and the removal (by Neutrality) of an NPOV tag. My change on that tag was definately not a revert. Neutrality's might be considered one, but on the main issue, he's only at a count of (4) reverts. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 05:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article needs an NPOV tag at this time. L33tminion 20:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I am going to unprotect the page as evidence is needed of Rex071404's editing behavior for an arbitration case. Fred Bauder 13:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest that rather than trying to place your own interpretations of whether the case is "important" or "disruptive" that you use attributed quotes from commentators. Fred Bauder 13:36, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've taken Fred's suggestion, inserting one pro and one con comment, then followed up with the language I proposed earlier and which no one objected to. JamesMLane 15:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the "con" quotation to one which is more representative of the "con" side. 20:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have updated Wolfman's attribution off the comment from ACLJ to Jay Sekulow. Also, changed "denoucned" to "referred to". Link to quote is supplied - sounds more dry and explainitory that "denouncing", hence changing of "denounced" to "referred to". 22:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)