Frothy Mix: Obergefell Proves That My 2003 "Man On Dog" Warning Was Right

FLASHBACK: That Time Ted Cruz Passed On Defending Sodomy Laws At SCOTUS

Bloomberg gives us some interesting history:

[Ted] Cruz is making the gay marriage debate the cornerstone of a bid to rally conservatives to his 2016 presidential bid, but same-sex issues haven't always been the top priority for a lawmaker who built his profile as a limited-government, Tea Party-aligned conservative. As Texas solicitor general when the Lawrence v. Texas case came before the Supreme Court, Cruz was "very much in the middle of all this drama," said Mitchell Katine, who was local counsel to the two gay men at the center of the case, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. The two had been dragged out of their bedroom by police and charged with "deviate sex."

Yet "Cruz remained absolutely silent," Katine said. The case remained assigned instead to a Harris County district attorney. Through a spokesman, Cruz said he didn't step in because the case was criminal in nature and his office primarily handled civil cases. Yet six of the nine cases Cruz argued before the nation's highest court were criminal in nature. Cruz also was just beginning a new job, and his advisers say he wasn't in a position to take over. Cruz started the solicitor general's job Feb. 10, 2003 and the Texas brief was filed on Feb. 17. Yet Dellinger notes that the court argument wasn't until March 26, which gave "plenty of time to prepare." "One would expect the state solicitor to argue a case of this magnitude," said Dellinger.

The above-linked article goes on to recount the times that Cruz has courted major homocon donors including billionaire PayPal founder and GOProud supporter Peter Thiel, who contributed nearly a million dollars to Cruz campaigns. This history is rather interesting in light of the still-raging controversy about those gay hoteliers.

Texas State Rep: Keep Our Sodomy Ban

Via the San Antonio Express:

Barely two months after a federal judge struck down Texas’ hair braiding regulations, a move to erase the unconstitutional statute already has bipartisan support. Not so for Texas’ anti-sodomy law, which remains on the books a dozen years after the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. “Absolutely, there is a difference,” said Rep. James White, R-Hillister, who has filed a bill to do away with the braiding statute but wants to keep a similarly illegal law that criminalizes homosexual sex. The braiding regulation, he said, “was a way of disenfranchising them out of the marketplace. I don’t necessarily think this was the case with sodomy.” White explained the discrepancy this way: Opposing homosexuality is akin to “a community coming together and having a moral standard, per se, as opposed to using the regulatory environment to disenfranchise people.” “Obviously, sodomy covers a lot of instances. It can even cover bestiality and there are a lot of public health standards and even decency standards,” he added.

Pro-LGBT Texas legislators have tried to remove the sodomy statute in every session since the US Supreme Court ruled in 2003. White has a 93% approval rating from the Eagle Forum. John Wright notes that White is wrong about bestiality, which remains perfectly legal in Texas.

Quote Of The Day - Dan Savage

"Let's take [Ross] Douthat at his word and just accept that it didn't occur to him the event was a fundraiser even after the MC began soliciting donations from the stage during the event. Let's focus on this this instead: Douthat isn't apologizing for crawling into bed with the ADF, an organization that wants to send Douthat's colleagues Frank Bruni (gay), Josh Barro (gay), Charles Blow (bi), and Jennifer Boylan (a trans woman married to another woman) to prison. He's not apologizing for speaking before the ADF. He's only apologizing for appearing at a fundraiser for the ADF. (Accidentally!)

"So... it's fine for writers at the NYT to speak before hate groups—rabidly anti-gay orgs like the ADF, anti-Semitic groups, the reconstituted KKK, White Citizen Councils—so long as the event isn't a fundraiser? So... it would've been fine for Douthat to have a 'conversation' with the organization that wants to send Frank Bruni and Josh Barro to prison but a line was crossed when Douthat helped raise money for the organization that wants to send Frank Bruni and Josh Barro to prison. And let's end with followup question for Ross Douthat: We know that your pals at the ADF want to send Josh and Frank to prison—along with all the other gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans folks who work at the New York Times—but do you? Do you believe that gay sex should be criminalized? And if you don't, Ross, what are you doing in bed with people who do?" - Dan Savage, writing for The Stranger.

NOTE: Savage is referring to Alliance Defending Freedom's opposition to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence V Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide. Here's what the ADF wrote in March of that year.

Plaintiff’s arguments have serious problems, explained Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. "They are asking the court to convert itself into a national legislature and to determine state policy regarding marriage, family, and sexual conduct outside of marriage. They are asking the court to judge a case that has no court record on which to rule. The plaintiffs are asking the court to suddenly declare as unconstitutional certain laws which have existed in unbroken succession since before the founding of the country." The ultimate goal of this case is not simply to end sodomy laws, Lorence explained. "Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use a win in this case to advance their ambitious agenda. They want a court win to change the definition of marriage, because the real goal is to legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’ They want a win that will lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior," Lorence said.

NOT incidentally, quoted in that post is the ADF's archenemy, then Houston City Councilwoman Annise Parker.

COMPILATION: Gay News In The 2000s

JMG reader Dave Evans has compiled 40 minutes of gay-related news clips that aired in the 2000s. Among the topics: Lawrence V Texas, the Hate Crimes Act, Massachusetts marriage, Proposition 8, DADT, and DOMA.

PREVIOUSLY ON JMG: Compilations of gay news in the 1970s, gay news in the 1980s, gay news in the 1990s, and the first ten years of HIV/AIDS.

Today's Lie From Breitbart

In fact, nowhere in the judge's 91-page ruling do the words "same-sex marriage" appear.  What the judge DID cite is Lawrence V Texas, which overturned statewide bans on sodomy by declaring that all consenting adult Americans have a right to sexual privacy in their own homes. But the pesky truth is unimportant over at Breitbart, not even to "senior legal analyst" Ken Klukowski. And guess what Klukowski's day job is? Funny how they never mention that at Breitbart, huh?

US Hate Group Cheers Indian Ruling

"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing. India chose to protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates. The Texas case laid the groundwork for the invalidation of traditional marriage by a number of courts subsequent to that. The Indian Supreme Court saw what had happened there and was wise enough not to want to go down that road. America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society." - Benjamin Bull, executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom, speaking to the American Family Association's OneNewsNow.

RELATED: Early this year an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom was convicted on eight felony counts of making child pornography with her daughter. She was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

FLASHBACK: Lawrence V. Texas

Just out from Lambda Legal:

In 1998, on a September night in Houston, police stormed into John Lawrence's home and arrested him and Tyron Garner for violating Texas' "homosexual conduct" law. "Overruled!" highlights their story and the courtroom drama behind Lawrence v. Texas -- the case that led the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down all remaining state sodomy laws and launched a new era in the LGBT rights movement.

Lawrence Vs. Texas Plaintiff Dies At 68

John Geddes Lawrence, the man whose court battle resulted in the decriminalization of gay sex, has died at the age of 68. Chris Geidner reports at Metro Weekly:

In the facts underlying the Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested under Texas's Homosexual Conduct Law after police entered Lawrence's home on Sept. 17, 1998, and saw them "engaging in a sexual act." The couple challenged the law as unconstitutional, Lambda Legal backed their challenge, and the couple fought it up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith then argued the case for Lawrence and Garner on March 26, 2003. Three months later on June 26, 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's opinion, holding, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

The second Lawrence Vs. Texas plaintiff, Tyson Garner, died in 2006.

Some States Still Criminalize Sodomy

Equality Matters notes:

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Texas’ sodomy statute was unconstitutional, marking a major legal victory on the path towards LGBT equality. With the remainder of state sodomy laws technically invalidated by Lawrence, the LGBT community began to shift its focus. [snip] Eight years later, however, eighteen states still refuse to rewrite their laws and take these anti-gay relics off their books, with countless LGBT Americans continuing to feel their devastating effects as a result. Several state legislatures and courts have exploited loopholes in the Lawrence decision, while others have simply refused to acknowledge the decision altogether.

In some states, gay men are still being arrested for "crimes against nature." Hit the link for much more.

Sodomy Map

Despite Lawrence Vs. Texas, laws specifically against gay sex remain on the books in four states. Ten other states continue to outlaw all acts of sodomy. Last month the GOP blocked an attempt to delete such a law in Montana.

(Via - Matt Yglesias)

KANSAS: Lawmakers Call For Continued Criminalization Of LGBT Residents

Even though in 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all anti-sodomy laws in its landmark Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, two state legislators in Kansas are fighting to keep their now unconstitutional laws on the books. The Kansas Equality Coalition reports:

State Representatives Jan Pauls (D, Hutchinson), and Lance Kinzer (R, Olathe) said yesterday that being gay or lesbian should remain a crime in Kansas. Pauls made, with Kinzer’s support, the successful motion in the Kansas Legislature’s Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee to keep the criminalization of gay and lesbian relationships on the books. Their action removed key language from HB2321, proposed by the Kansas Judicial Council, which would have resolved inconsistencies in Kansas criminal code, as well as remove unconstitutional laws. “Jan Pauls was trusted to be a judge before becoming a state representative, and should know better than to support unconstitutional laws, breaking her oath to defend the Constitution,” said Jon Powell, Chair of the Hutchinson Area chapter of the Kansas Equality Coalition. “We are fed up with her obvious support of harassment of gays and lesbians. We will not be bullied.”

Equality-minded Kansans are encourage to join a March 17th demonstration calling for Rep. Paul's removal as chairwoman of the Kansas House Judiciary Committee.

MONTANA: Republican Party Wants To "Keep Homosexual Acts Illegal"

The Montana GOP refuses to remove a call to "keep homosexual acts illegal", which falls under the "Crime" section of their party platform, despite the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence ruling. In fact, they are keeping the plank even though Montana's own state Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex six years before SCOTUS.

Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana. Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said. "There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court," Greenwood said.

Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position. "To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

RELATED: In June the Texas GOP called for the recriminalization of sodomy and for making it a felony to perform a same-sex marriage.

Quote Of The Day - Antonin Scalia

"My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect but to show that it beats the other available alternatives. Did any provision of the Constitution guarantee a right to abortion? No one thought so for almost two centuries after the founding. Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy? Same answer." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking on the issue of originalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of its writers. In other words, we should live as if it were still 1787.

Texas: Kicked Out For A Kiss

A group of gay men were thrown out of an El Paso, Texas restaurant last week after a security guard objected to a kiss between two of the men. The cops were summoned and the ejected men were stunned when police told them they were liable for a citation as homosexual activity was illegal in Texas.

At about 12:30 a.m. on the morning of June 29, the five men were placing their order at the Chico's Tacos on Montwood when the two men made their public display of affection, sparking the ire of two contracted security guards at the restaurant, police and witnesses said. After the group sat down, the security guards told them "they didn't allow that faggot stuff to go on there," and made them leave, de Leon said. An officer arrived at the restaurant about an hour later, after police received five calls, including from the security guards and de Leon. The men were told to leave the restaurant and had anti-gay slurs directed at them while they waited for the police.

"I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on and he didn't want to hear my side," de Leon said. "He wanted to hear the security guard's side first." The officer informed the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public, de Leon said. The five were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct - a charge the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. That same year, the city of El Paso passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by employees of the city and by businesses open to the public. El Paso Police Detective Carlos Carrillo said a more appropriate charge would probably be criminal trespass. "The security guard received a complaint from some of the customers there," Carrillo said. "Every business has the right to refuse service. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don't want there. That's their prerogative."

The ACLU and a local civil rights group point out that if lewd behavior was the restaurant's complaint, that standard must apply equally to straight and gay patrons by El Paso law. Clearly the El Paso police are not up to speed and the gay men have grounds for a lawsuit.

Lawrence V. Texas Lawyer Hoisted On His Own Cheating, Racist Petard

In Lawrence Vs. Texas, the landmark 2003 case that overturned sodomy laws nationwide, Houston District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal argued that gays have no right to privacy to "engage in extramarital sexual relations."

Last month Rosenthal resigned in disgrace after emails he'd attempted to delete showed that he is an adulterer and a racist. Rosenthal is being sued for "official misconduct" by Lloyd Kelley, his last election opponent. Kelley's suit led to the uncovering of the emails.

Rosenthal's attempt to purge emails that may have been related to the suits from his government email account before turning his hard drive over to federal investigators. Even though he'd dragged much of the offending correspondence – "thousands of emails," by one report – to the trash and emptied the trash, government technicians are currently busy reconstructing the documents, which had been the subject of a subpoena in Kelley's suit before Rosenthal attempted to destroy them.

But at the moment, what's more interesting is the stuff Rosenthal didn't destroy. Besides a cartoon depicting an African-American suffering from a "fatal overdose" of watermelon and fried chicken, Rosenthal had also retained sexually-explicit video clips and love notes to his secretary (who'd been his mistress during his previous marriage) in his "saved" mail. One interchange with the secretary had Rosenthal writing, "I love you so much" and "I want to kiss you behind your right ear," to which she replied, "Go spend time with your family."

The NY Times notes the irony: "Mr. Rosenthal has sought to keep the e-mail messages sealed, citing 'zones of privacy' carved out by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 ruling overturning the state’s ban on sodomy — although Mr. Rosenthal had argued the case for Texas and the legality of the anti-sodomy laws."

(Via - Towleroad.)