| Related Articles Related Links |
STORY: There was a joyous mood yesterday at the rally at City Hall celebrating the Supreme Court decision, which struck down sodomy laws. Hugs and smiles abounded for Mitchell Katine, the local attorney and the two men he represented in the historic case, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Those men were willing to fight their arrest for five years, all the way to the Supreme Court. Activists invoked the names of those who fought for gay rights for years, like Gene Harrington, but died before they could see this day. One activist who fought a previous lawsuit against the sodomy law, Linda Morales, said the victory is about the right of Americans to love and be loved. Linda Morales spoke about her efforts to educate others: ”I did a lot of educating in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods and Hispanic communities. A lot of folks didn't realize the law was on the books. I think we made a lot of headway into a lot of communities by just being there, folks seeing that yeah, you know, there's nothing wrong with quote, unquote "these people." And that we're their neighbors, we're their friends, we're their relatives and so we did a lot of educating in a lot of communities.” Polling results show that Morales and thousands of others did make headway. Various polls taken recently show that from 60 to 80 percent of Americans agreed the sodomy law should be struck down. This number has about doubled from the time 30 years ago when the sodomy law was written in Texas. Legal analysts continued to pore over the rulings to try to divine what they would mean. Warren Richey, at ABC News, speculated on what effect the decision might have on abortion rights. He wrote that the Supreme Court decision, by finding again that privacy in "intimate conduct" between adults and a constitutionally protected right, will make it much harder for a future court to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade precedent. He quotes legal historian David Garrow: "Roe vs. Wade is inviolable for all time." Commentators continued to remark about the scathing dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia. His dissent, read in a voice sometimes tinged with scorn for the logic of the majority's court opinion, said: "...State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are ... sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices," he wrote. "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation." He warned that the next step will be "judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada." In Canada, where gay marriage is in the process of becoming national law, commentator John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail wrote that the American decision did not offer gay marriage, spousal benefits, hate crime protection or protection against discrimination ... just a halt to prosecution for being gay. He thought most gay people in Canada would respond to the American decision, "Damn nice of them." Meanwhile, the Michigan Family Forum's director, Brad Snavely, warned that the court's ruling "will encourage a culture of sexual chaos" and predicted the decision will increase illicit sexual practices and result in "more sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies," reported the Detroit News. The Detroit News did not explain how legalizing anal and oral sex would result in more pregnancies. Linda Morales spoke to why people may worry about the change in the laws: ”I think people are afraid of change, fear of the unknown. What could happen if lesbians and gays are given liberty -- I think they think the worst could happen, and I don't know what that would be. But I think they think the worst will happen. Fear of the unknown.” Only time will tell. Pokey Anderson, KPFT News, Houston. E-mail Pokey Anderson at pokeyink@aol.com . This story was broadcast on June 27, 2003. |