Opinion
 

Staff Editorial

Matthew Dulin         Geronimo Rodriguez 
Shaun Salnave          Cara Sarelli          Lisa Street

In the bedroom

Today the Supreme Court will take a look at probably one of the most highly regarded havens of privacy -- the bedroom.

The case at hand, Lawrence v. Texas, will determine whether or not homosexuals have the right to have sex in their own homes. A 1973 Texas law bans same-sex oral and anal sex.

What seems like a no-brainer to anyone who embraces freedom or at least respects the privacy of the bedroom has caused quite a bit of controversy. Let us hope the Supreme Court wonit spend too much time on it.

Gay or straight, everyone should have a certain level of privacy. Oneis own home, and certainly oneis bedroom, is private. It isnit the place for the government to impose laws, so long as people arenit killing each other in there.

In 1986, however, the Court found in Bowers v. Hardwick that gays did not have the right to have consensual sex in the 26 states that have laws against sodomy. And while police arenit exactly on a hunt to find gays making love, if they find a couple engaged in such activities, they can arrest them.

In the Texas case, cops barged into a house on the suspicion of drug possession and found two men in bed together. They were arrested and each paid a $200 fine. Later, however, they took their case to court.

The Texas case could stand out as a 20th century legal landmark for privacy and gay rights. Wouldnit that be something for Texas be the landmark for having anti-sodomy laws declared unconstitutional?

Before that happens, the Supreme Court must debate history -- because thatis what the Court works with in terms of precedents and looking at the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Some scholars are arguing the historical references used to decide the Bowers case were based on faulty studies. The Lawrence case will give the Supreme Court a chance to review new historical findings.

At issue is whether or not our founding fathers ever intended to single out homosexuals in a legal sense, to set restrictions on or otherwise. Even if the behaviors were criminalized, chances are the framers did not recognize gays as a legal group.

One of the few legal ways privacy can be taken away is if the case deals with public interest or impact, and itis hard to find any such impact when two consenting adults are simply carrying on with each other in their own room.

 Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu