Of Flagpoles, Gay Sex, and Jurisprudence

I know I'm really late to the party on this story, but it is simply too good not to comment on. Check out Dahlia Lithwick's fabulous column on one of the several interesting cases before the U.S. Supreme Court right now, Lawrence v. Texas:

Before we get hung up in the nuts and bolts of Lawrence v. Texas, let’s be clear: There are two kinds of homophobia, at least in Texas. The first is a hatred of all things homosexual. That’s bad. The other involves a certain fondness for gay people — an acceptance that they are A-OK, so long as they don’t commit any of those sex acts they’re inclined toward. This sort of Will & Grace (“gays are so cute but don’t show me what they do in bed”) homophobia seems not only to be defensible according to the state of Texas; it also appears to be the lynchpin of their argument in today’s long-awaited gay sodomy case.

The facts of Lawrence are straightforward and mostly undisputed: Texas police entered the apartment of Houston resident John Lawrence in response to a neighbor’s fabricated claim that a man in there with a gun was “going crazy.” What the cops actually found was Lawrence and Tyron Garner having anal sex, for which they were promptly arrested under a Texas law prohibiting “deviate sexual behavior” (i.e., oral or anal sex) between persons of the same gender.

Pause here to consider that bestiality is not considered “deviate” under Texas law.

There are far too many worthy quotes in this piece. Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.