The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a
Texas law banning same-sex sodomy, a ruling that appeared to invalidate
similar laws in Kansas and Missouri.
The 6-3 ruling drew praise from gay rights
supporters and condemnation from social conservatives.
In Kansas, the
decision was likely to affect several criminal cases in Johnson County
District Court, where prosecutors have used the state's law to combat
sexual activity in public park rest rooms.
In Missouri, the ruling prompted the Jefferson
County prosecutor on Thursday to dismiss charges against six men
arrested for alleged sexual activity at an adult video store.
The three states and Oklahoma were the only
remaining states to ban consensual sex between persons of the same
gender, but the ruling also could affect broader anti-sodomy laws in
nine other states.
Some court observers called the decision a major
re-examination of the rights and acceptance of gay people. The case also
tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on between
consenting adults behind closed bedroom doors.
Texas officials defended the law by saying it
promoted the institutions of marriage and family. They argued that
communities have the right to choose their standards.
But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the
majority opinion, said the law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons"
by "making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in saying the law
was a violation of the constitution's due process clause.
"Petitioners' right to liberty under the due
process clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct
without government intervention," the majority concluded.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed that the law was
unconstitutional, but said she thought it violated the Constitution's
equal protection clause.
The dissent was written by Justice Antonin Scalia
and joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence
Thomas.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called
homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote. He took the unusual step of reading
his dissent from the bench.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war,"
Scalia said. He added that he had "nothing against homosexuals."
Thomas wrote separately that he thought the Texas
law was "uncommonly silly" and said he would vote to repeal it if he
were a Texas legislator.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Kansas said
they were reviewing the ruling and would contact local prosecutors about
the decision.
"Today's ruling appears to call into question
Missouri's law prohibiting consensual same-sex sexual activity,"
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said. He noted that it did not
affect laws concerning non-consensual acts.
In Kansas, Attorney General Phill Kline said he
thought the decision rendered Kansas' law "unenforceable and
unconstitutional."
Members of the local gay community called the
ruling a victory.
Justin Pirnie, who co-owns In the Life, a
department store in Westport that caters to gays, was telling his
customers "congratulations."
"I feel recognized," Pirnie said. "I feel I am
better able to participate as an American."
Jeff Wunrow, executive director of Promo, a
Missouri gay rights lobbying organization, said he was "hugely pleased."
He had lobbied unsuccessfully for years in Jefferson City to persuade
lawmakers to repeal Missouri's anti-sodomy law.
"This is something that has been a black eye on our
Supreme Court and our country and in Missouri for years, because the
Missouri law is similar to the Texas law," Wunrow said from St. Louis.
"This is a marvelous step forward."
Alex Flemington, president of the Kansas City
pro-gay political group Four Freedoms Democratic Club, said the court's
decision could make it easier to validate gay marriages,
anti-discrimination laws and adoption for gay couples.
Such possibilities disturb social conservatives.
"It appears this could be the basis for a broader
interpretation of family and marriage law," said Judy Smith of Leawood,
who is the Kansas director for Concerned Women for America, a
conservative family-values group. "I think maybe the court said more
than they should have."
An activist who has lobbied in the Missouri
legislature against repealing the law called it a "sad decision" that
curtailed the state's right to protect its residents from health risks.
Kerry Messer, president of Missouri Family Network,
said the prohibition was a matter of "not only values, but public
health."
"I don't see our sodomy law as being any more
restrictive or offensive than our seat belt law or helmet law or
mandatory vaccination laws designed to protect the health of our
citizens, so I'm very disappointed," Messer said.
The Texas case involved two men, John Geddes
Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were each fined $200 and spent a night in
jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.
The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked
a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in
Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door
and found the two men having sex.
As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy
law. In 37 states, lawmakers have repealed the statutes or courts have
blocked them.
The Supreme Court was widely criticized in 1986
when it upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law similar to the law in Texas.
The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.
Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case,
only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that
case -- Bowers v. Hardwick -- as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.
A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay
rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many
friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986,
and that the court should catch up.
At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24
states criminalized such behavior. Georgia was among the states that
have since repealed the laws.
Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with
the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing.
Homosexual sex, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do
with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with
these sacred choices."
The state had urged the court to draw a
constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom."
Unlike the Texas case, five pending cases in
Johnson County District Court involve alleged sex acts in public park
rest rooms.
District Attorney Paul Morrison said he didn't know
of any case in Johnson County in which the law had been used to
prosecute someone for private behavior, as in the Texas case.
One of the men now facing charges, Robert T. Rowe
of Shawnee, challenged the Kansas law's constitutionality after a
prosecution in 2001.
In a January ruling, the Kansas Court of Appeals
upheld the Kansas law in Rowe's case, finding that the law served a
legitimate state interest.
Rowe's lawyer, Darrell Smith, had argued that the
law violated Rowe's right to equal protection because of his sexual
orientation.
Smith said Thursday that a hearing has been
scheduled for Aug. 13 in Rowe's case to address the high court's
decision.
The misdemeanor charge in Kansas carries a maximum
sentence of six months in jail. In Missouri, it is also a misdemeanor
that can be punished by up to one year in jail.
Kansas prosecutors have the option of filing other
misdemeanor charges, such as lewd and lascivious behavior, in instances
of public sexual activity.
The prosecutor in Jefferson County, Mo., said he
would file other charges against the six men -- and a woman who was not
initially charged in the case.
The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.
John Dvorak of The Star, as well as The Associated
Press contributed to this report.
