Here's CNN's
take on the sodomy law arguments presented before the Supreme
Court on Wednesday. An excerpt:
States should not be able to single out one group and make their conduct illegal solely because the state dislikes that conduct, lawyer Paul Smith argued for the Texas men.
"There is a long history of the state making moral judgments," retorted Justice Antonin Scalia. "You can make it sound very puritanical," but the state may have good reasons, Scalia added.
"Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct. That's why people regulate," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist added dryly.
Justice Stephen Breyer challenged Houston prosecutor Charles Rosenthal to justify why the state has any interest in peeping into the bedrooms of gay people.
I"m glad the article references the libertarian briefs against sodomy laws presented by the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice. It also quotes from the Republican Unity Coalition's brief against the laws, which was written by IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter.
With little doubt, Rehnquist and Scalia will vote to uphold
sodomy laws, probably joined by Thomas. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter,
and Stevens will find these archaic statutes unconstitutional.
Kennedy and O"Connor, the two moderate conservatives, remain the
wildcards. The decision is expected at the end of June.
--Stephen H. Miller