l,

 was
QUARTO

HQ
75
.0971

 

  

7
1

v’ ' S

‘p. 19 Kristin Pettit looks at
film and a’lLost. Nation
Theatre program recalling V
A the dangers of being a
'“suspected’f ,|'esbian.

‘V Amusical Review
p. 20 Lluvia Mulvaney-

. Stanakcruises through a

concert and two CDs:
Catie, Ani & Fab Disasters

News 1-3
Editorial 4
Letters 5
Features 8 - 10
Columns 11 -17
Arts 18 - 21
community Compass 22
Calendar 22
 Source 25
Blassifieds 27
Gayity 29

44444444444

E

 

Bv EUAN BEAR

ne of the most damag-

ing Supreme Court rul-

ings in the history of
gay activism was issued in 1986
in Bowers v. Hardwick, uphold-
ing Georgia’s sodomy law. But
now, says Lambda Legal, the
Supreme Court has the chance to
rectify that antigay miscarriage
of justice in Lawrence & Garner
v. Texas. The Court heard oral
arguments on March 26, with a
ruling expected in June.

The Hardwick ‘ruling,
said Ruth Harlow of Lambda
Legal in a press.briefing, “has
been used to deny gay men and
lesbians jobs, housing, and cus-
tody of their children.”

Gay bartender Michael
Hardwick was arrested for
sodomy in his own bedroom by
a policeman executing an
expired bench warrant for a mis-
demeanor public drinking
offense. Hardwick filed suit to
overturn the law and won in the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
State Attorney General Michael
Bowers then appealed that,ver—
dict to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 1986 case became infamous
for its stridently anti—gay word'-
ing and its chilling effect on gay
rights struggles across the nation.

While that case (and
another in which he fired an
attorney because she was a les-

bian) helped end Bowers’ politi— _

cal career, unfortunately Michael
Hardwick did not live to see the
ruling overturned: he died in
1991. Georgia’s own Supreme

' Court ruled that its sodomy law

violated the state’s constitution
in 1998. But the U.S. Supreme
Court’s Hardwick ruling remains
an influence supporting anti—gay
prejudice in the 13 states and one
commonwealth (Puerto Rico)
that still have sodomy laws on
their books. In four of those
states and in Puerto Rico,
sodomy laws apply only to
same-sex conduct. In the others,
the laws are rarely enforced
against anyone except homosex-
uals.

The current case,
Lawrence & Garner v. Texas,
has a familiar ring." Police
received a report — later proved
false — of a gun-waving “crazy
man” in John Lawrence’s apart-
ment. But instead of leaving the
apartment when no gunman was
found, the officers cited
Lawrence and Tyron Gamer for
being two persons of the same
gender having anal sex, prohibit-
ed underthe state’s same—sex
only sodomy statute.

Lawrence and Garner
eventually pled nolo contendere
and paid $200 each in fines

 

» APRIL ‘2'

Supreme Curt Revisits Landmark
Rulingson Race and Sex;

 

Lawrence & Garner Ruling May
Overturn Legalized Discrimination

before appealing. their convic-
tions. Under those convictions,
the two men are now legally
identified as sex offenders in
some states.

The Supreme Court
accepted Lambda Legal’s entire
case for consideration and could
rule on either of its two claims.
The first is that sodomy laws of
any kind are an unwarranted
intrusion by the government into
the privacy of consenting adults.
This claim is based on what is
called the “due.process” clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to
U.S. Constitution, sometimes
referred to as the “liberty” or
“privacy” rights provision.

V, The second claim is that

-above: Ea;r1hatt§eei_,Pa:1ners Tyron Garner and lohn Lawreniie

sodomy laws criminalizing only
same—sex behavior violate the
equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. A favor-
able ruling on this claim would
overturn the sodomy lawsin
Texas, Kansas, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Puerto Rico,
while leaving general sodomy
laws intact in Idaho, Utah,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Virginia.

Vermont and Wyoming
repealed their states’ sodomy
laws in 1977, the 19th and 20th
states to do so. The first was
Illinois in 1962.

‘ Lambda Legal’s Ruth

_ Harlow said in a press briefing

STATE-BY-STATE MAP OF SODOMY LAWS

 

j LAW APPLIES TO SAME-SEX marnzns ONLY
am LAW APPUES to sA 

RELATED STORY;

Beyond Bakke: University of Michigan Law School Makes Its
Case for saving ‘Race-Conscious’ Admissions, see page 8

 

, that a favorable ruling by the
7 Court on either claim would be a

victory by either overturning V

":1-Iardwick or abolishing the dou-

ble standard of same—sex only
laws. Although Harlow is the
counsel of record, she did not
argue the case-in the Supreme
Court, Paul Smith, who is an
experienced Supreme Court liti-
gator in the firm of Jenner &
Block and also gay, took on that
task. _ .. 7

Beth Robinson, who
became famous as one of the two
lawyers arguing Baker v. State
(the lawsuit against the state for
denying same—sex ‘couples the
right to marry) before the
Vermont Supreme Court, says
she has been following the
Lawrence case closely. “For well
over a~decade courts have beaten
us over the head with Bowers v.
Hardwick — not just in connec-
tion with sodomy laws, but with
respect to our basic rights to hold
down a job, serve our country,
and protect our families. The
Lawrence case offers the United
States Supreme Court the chance
to undo one of its most tragic
decisions in modern times,” she
wrote in answer to an email
query. ,

Lambda Legal is opti-
mistic about its chances of win-
ning its case. The Texas attorney
general declined to take on the
appeal, leaving it to the Harris
County district attorney. The
Texas case relies heavily on
Bowers v. Hardwick. The amicus
brief by 63 of 150 members of
the Texas House and six of 31
members of the Texas Senate
rests on the “traditional” right of

' state legislatures to regulate mar-

riage, procreation and acts —
such as same—sex sodomy —. that
“endanger public health.” And
the U.S. Solicitor General has
not weighed in on the side of
Texas.

Lambda Legal attorney
Ruth Harlow said that Texas’s
brief also cautions the Court to
“be very careful” because over-
turning its sodomy law will
“lead to same—sex marriage.”
But, she added, “The Court will
narrowly decide this case on its
own four corners. Here we have
the government saying we are
criminals. We have support from
Republicans on our‘ side who
agree that the government does
not belong in our bedrooms. This
is the most important case in a
generation.

“I’m not really a .
Supreme Court handicapper,”
Harlow declared just before giv-
ing her most optimistic expecta-
tion: “a 7-2 vote in our favor.” V