Exceprts from Supreme Court Lawrence (striking down “sodomy” laws)
It is the last sentence of the second paragraph, which speaks about the previous paragraph (which included a reference to marriage) which has the fundies all in a tizzy and Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist suddenly bolding pushing for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment… I can tell you one thing… if the Dems let any such think pass through the house or Senate, queer folk everywhere are going to eat them alive (with good reason).
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.
To say that say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws in-volved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human con-duct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not en-titled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3–6.
***
Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its hold-ing into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again con-firmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and per-sonal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amend-ment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the uni-verse, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of per-sonhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.
***
