Quotes on Gay Sex Ban Ruling
Associated Press, June 26,
2003
Quotes on the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday
striking down state bans on gay sex:
“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of
the state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject
homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private
spheres.”
—Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court
majority.
“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage
in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their
home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a
lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
—Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent.
“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely
based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct
associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and
the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”
—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, agreeing with the
majority.
“Let me be
clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting
their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and
other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its
fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading
one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of
democratic majority will is something else.”
—Scalia.
“This is a
giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals.”
—Ruth Harlow, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case
and legal director at Lambda Legal.
“If the
people have no right to regulate sexuality then ultimately the institution of
marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the coming generations of
children.”
—Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on
the Family.
“We still
have a long way to go in achieving full equality, but the court’s
recognition that all women and men, regardless of their sexuality, have a
constitutional right to privacy is a huge step forward.”
—National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.
“It is my
opinion that this decision represents a paradigm shift from the court’s
previous decisions in holding that homosexual acts are protected liberty
interests and that the Texas Legislature has no rational basis to forbid those
acts.
I am disappointed that the Supreme Court justices who
voted in favor of the reversal did not allow the people of the state of Texas,
through their elected legislators, to determine moral standards of governance
for this state.”
—Charles Rosenthal, a lawyer who argued the case for
Texas.
“This
ruling opens the door for new advances toward full equality and should be
viewed as a challenge to legislators to help pass important legal protections
for GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) Americans—like employment
nondiscrimination laws and comprehensive hate crimes legislation.”
—Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights
Campaign.
“Today’s
Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas law against homosexual sodomy is a
defeat for public morality and America’s families. This ill-conceived
decision will have serious repercussions upon public health and welfare in
Texas and other states that still criminalize sodomy.”
—Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of Traditional Values
Coalition.
“We are
all safer today because the court reaffirmed the principle that bigotry and
fear may not be the basis for criminalizing private consensual conduct.
Recognizing that Americans are entitled to respect for their private lives,
the decision is a ringing endorsement of the principles of individual liberty
and freedom from discrimination and bigotry.”
—Glen A. Tobias, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation
League and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director.
“Punishing
someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual
conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend
valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as
a member of this court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others
similarly situated.”
—Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in a dissent that he
would vote to repeal the anti-sodomy law if he were a member of the Texas
Legislature.
[Home] [News] [Lawrence
v. Texas]
