Lawrence v. Texas

1986, the Supreme Court rules in Bowers v. Hardwick to condemn queer Americans, ruling 5-4 to uphold the Georgia statute criminalizing even private queer relationships.

And it was finally overruled in Lawrence v. Texas in 2005.

The anti-sodomy laws enacted then still exist.

And the Equality Act is still not law.

It's not lost on me that 20 years ago, the sex that I've had as an adult would've landed me in a prison in my home state of Texas.

This was changed because of the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the law that would've made me a criminal.

On the other hand, it's also not lost on me that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, that he would rather Texas be able to send me to prison, and that in 2022, he stated that he would wanna reconsider the case, potentially turning me into a criminal in my home state again.

I think about two possible worlds.

In one world, the world of Texas law before Lawrence v. Texas, someone is trying to attack me in some way.

They know that I'm having sex with another man.

They call the police, claiming someone with a weapon is in my home, knowing the police wouldn't need a warrant to enter.

The police break into my home, see that I'm having sex, and charge me with a misdemeanor.

There is a growing recognition that international human rights norms in general, and the ICCPR in particular, should be applied to the United States.

The United States Supreme Court relied on international human rights laws in Lawrence v. Texas to find that a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same gender to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct was unconstitutional.

The court analyzed the development of international law and practice since the last time the court addressed the same question in Bowers v. Hardwick.

The court cited three decisions of the European Court, noted that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct, and concluded that the right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as a part of human freedom in many other countries.

There is a growing recognition that international human rights norms in general, and the ICCPR in particular, should be applied to the United States.

The United States Supreme Court relied on international human rights laws in Lawrence v. Texas to find that a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same gender to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct was unconstitutional.

The court analyzed the development of international law and practice since the last time the court addressed the same question in Bowers v. Hardwick.

The court cited three decisions of the European Court, noted that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct, and concluded that the right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as a part of human freedom in many other countries.

Paxton, of course, has never had a problem making other people's personal lives an issue.

He said he would defend a state law that bans sodomy after Clarence Thomas suggested the court reconsider its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

And Paxton also created a tip line where you could submit photos if you suspected a trans person was using a public bathroom, even though it is illegal to take pictures of people in a public bathroom because the lighting is so bad.

[laughing] Paxton, who's running against Democrat James Talarico, publicly separated from his wife last year after she filed for divorce on, quote, "biblical grounds." Biblical grounds refers to both adultery and a fabulous Christian coffee shop where Ken Paxton fucked a barista.