Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

Owens v. State

does anyone have reference to this "Owens v. State" ? I see the opinion but I don't see how it's related to the quote below..

Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, which held that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage."

Jkister (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's

The article says:

> An organized American LGBT-rights movement emerged in the initial decades after the Second World War

But if you follow the LGBT link is says right off that the LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's.

It was called the gay rights movement before then. It was a much smaller tent back then.

I think we should call the movement by what it was called back then -- not what it has evolved into.

[Just as, when we talk about certain people during the Civil War we refer to them as abolitionists -- not civil rights protesters.]

So I propose we change it to say gay-rights not LGBT-rights 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.52.23 (talk)

Does anyone object if I change LGBT to gay in the above referenced sentence? Hoping To Help (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, lesbians were involved as early as the 1950s. But the point is still correct: nobody called it "LGBT rights" until more recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the organized gay rights movement in the US started as early as the 1900s, check LGBT rights in the United States for the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.94.146 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Holding section

I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content [1] as it was improperly done and I had no idea if the intended change was appropriate e.g. if the holding section comes from the actual ruling. However after looking around, I've foind nothing similar and it does seem sort of out of place to me so removed it properly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=253603600&oldid=253599682 ]. However I'm not voicing an opinion on whether it should stay or go Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical editing needed

The following sentence needs some semi-colons or may need to be broken into several shorter sentences:

Sexual liberty proponents believe that Lawrence explicitly analogized same-sex sodomy and mixed-sex sodomy, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (O'Connor, J. concurring). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.221.223 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Redirect. -- Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing that John Geddes Lawrence be merged into this article. There's little evidence that Mr Lawrence is notable apart from the lawsuit, and his article has been flagged for non-notability since December 2008. In fact, I would not object to a simple redirect, with none of the (very limited) content of Mr Lawrence's article being copied to here. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the redirect is a good idea. Motorneuron (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the simple re-direct. There is so little in that article, I would hardly call it a merger. TechBear (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't you find this too ... homophobic?

Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private.

Why wouldn't one write "...to criminalize same-sex sexual intercourse between consenting..."??? Or something else. I find this part to be offensive and change it. Hope you don't mind. Այնշախոր (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the state laws at the time of Lawrence specifically targeted "sodomy", so using anything else amounts to original research. Further, the vagueness of "sodomy" under state law was one of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled as it did: same-sex activity was being prosecuted while different-sex activity that fell under the different statutory definitions of "sodomy" were not. The use of that word is correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas law used to ban same-sex and man-woman sodomy but it was amended in 1989 to ban only same-sex sodomy(Page 11). Believe it or not, bestiality was legalized in 1989(see page 261) but same-sex relations were not. The article needs to describe the history of the law under which they were being prosecuted. The Court was told by Texas counsel that the law was unchanged for 2000 years but Justice Kennedy et al knew that the law had been narrowed to just target gays and it was relatively new.

Here is a reference:Carpenter, Dale (2012). Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06208-3. OCLC 761383909. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) --Javaweb (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I'd agree that we should be more precise on the Texas law. I'd also say the article gives to much weight to the dissenting opinion and contains to much commentary. Thanks for the link to the Carpenter book, hopefully it will be a good source. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits

I came here to add some material from Carpenter's book and was surprised by the state of this entry, especially the casual tone of some sections and what appears to be a lot of personal, unattributed speculation, some of it seriously out-of-date in addition to being inappropriate. Also irrelevant material related to levels of scrutiny or state decision sthat did not reference Lawrence, etc. I see no reason not to be bold about editing this, saving what can be saved. Also surprised not to find a list of the states whose sodomy laws this decision made unenforceable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wolfenden report

The article says that the majority opinion cites the "Wolfenden Report of 1963", which it does. However, according to Wolfenden Report and its sources, this report was published in 1957. In fact, the opinion confusingly says:

A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, § 1.

So is 1963 just a typo in the opinion, or is there some reason for them (and us) to cite this date? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In 1963, it was apparently reprinted with a different name, which is the name Kennedy uses, although he uses the American spelling "Offenses" instead of "Offences".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So while we are precise in terms of what Kennedy cited, we mislead the reader who doesn't follow the link to the Wolfenden Report. We're not trying to document Kennedy's citations here. The point is the range and variety of the materials he referenced. And Kennedy is making the point that these sources were all available when Bowers was decided. So both geography and dates matter. We should be underscoring the fact that the Wolfenden Report is not a US source. And the ref to the Model Penal Code is odd in that what is key is not its recommendations (plural) since 1955 but its recommendation (singular) in 1955 (or as long ago as 1955). And not everyone knows what a Model Penal Code is. I don't know much myself, but I wonder that Kennedy cites it as of 1955 while the Wikipedia entry says "The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory text which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962." (emphasis added.)

We say:

"He cited the Model Penal Code's recommendations since 1955, the Wolfenden Report of 1963, and a 1981 decision of the European Court of Human Rights."

How about:

"He cited opposition to the criminalization of private consensual sex in the Model Penal Code issued by the American Law Institute in 1955, in the British government's Wolfenden Report in 1957, and in a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1981."

Less than crisp, I know, but the progression from US to Britain to European is clearer, I think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look here, you'll see the ALI history of the MPC. As I read it, the 1955 date was a combination of tentative drafts, and the "official" version was released in 1962. So, in terms of your proposed text, I would just change the phrase to "in the draft of the Model ...". If you want, we could cite to ALI website to make it clearer. Otherwise, I understand and agree with your point that the substance matters more than capturing the precise dates used by Kennedy. These kinds of citations are no doubt written by law clerks who obsess over the "edition" dates of things they cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

The statement that "Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants" and a subsequent statement that all anti-sodomy statutes were invalidated need a more authorities source(s). While this interpretation of Lawrence appears in related articles and is a common interpretation, Lawrence expressly declined to consider the matter of statues with equal effect on homosexuals and heterosexuals. Wolf4NK (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide the language in the decision in which the court "expressly declined" to consider statutes that treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same? I don't think it's there.

The statute at issue was one that criminalized same-sex activity only. But the court ignored that issue entirely and didn't discuss the fact that the statute treated couples differently based on whether they were of the same sex or different sexes. Instead, the court focused on the fundamental issue of liberty and autonomy. Thus we read in the decision: "We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Note that free as adults. Nothing about same-sex or opposite sex, nothing about equally free as other couples. Just free as adults. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

'Five-justice majority'

Wouldn'T it be better to write this along the lines of 'a 6-3 decision'? I feel like it could eliminate any confusion, since the majority opinion was written by 5 justices, with one concurrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lawrence v. Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407072727/http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/02-0944.htm to http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/02-0944.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525185749/http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0433.htm to http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0433.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation

This page reflects incorrect information in that the name of the case was NOT "Lawrence V. Texas" But rather was Lawrence et al. V. Texas. This is due to the fact that Tyron Garner was also a named plaintiff to the case. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html . Where more than one party is named per side of the V. it is the rule of standard citation to include et al. after the first party name unless you name all parties. SlushPuppy (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't use et al. in the name of a case article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence v. Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109064321/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/12/john-geddes-lawrence-of-lawren.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/12/john-geddes-lawrence-of-lawren.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bestiality

I note that a section on bestiality was added added by AHC300, and in recent days has been removed by Jpgordon, re-added by Antinoos69, re-removed by Teammm, re-re-added by Antinoos69, and that addition further edited (sequentially) by Teammm and Antinoos69. Before we have any more editing / reverting, I thought that a touch of discussion might be nice. A few observations:

• the comment from Leighann Lassiter that "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all" has zero examples / evidence offered in support of it. If it does relate to the Lawrence decision, I think it is wrong... but I also think it actually relates to problems prosecuting bestiality under animal cruelty laws.
• the form of words in the current version, stating that the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute is simply wrong. Some states had "crimes against nature" statutes that made both sodomy and bestiality crimes, and the Lawrence ruling makes the sodomy part of those statutes unconstitutional, but this does not alter the status of the legal prohibition on bestiality. The problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality.
• absent specific prohibitions on bestiality, prosecutors are left trying to use animal cruelty statutes which are not well suited to prosecutions of bestiality as these statutes build crimes on the deliberate infliction of physical harm / injury to the animal. It is this problem that fits with the quote from Lassiter.
• politics complicates the situation – in Louisiana, efforts to pass a bestiality statute to replace the residue left from the crimes against nature statute are being treated as a stealthy approach to repealing the unconstitutional-but-still-on-the-books prohibition on sodomy.

Some relevant references:

• on the situation in Louisiana: April 24, 2018 - usnews.com, May 1, 2018 - religious liberty project, Harvard
• on one of the replacement laws (from Cleveland, Ohio): ".. without the new law, investigators' only option was to try and charge an offender under the existing animal cruelty laws. But that proved difficult because prosecutors must prove the animal suffered cruelness." - 22 September 2017 - cleveland.com
• on the non-replacement of bestiality prohibitions when crimes against nature laws are repealed: "States where bestiality is illegal do have animal cruelty laws, Lassiter said, but these are often inadequate when it comes to people sexually abusing animals. A person sexually abusing an animal might only be prosecuted if the animal is injured, while livestock or wild animals may be exempt from existing law. ... Lassiter said some states are lacking specific bestiality laws because animal sex abuse was covered under historic laws that also banned gay sex. In some cases when those laws were repealed bestiality was not reintroduced as an offense." - 8 December 2016 - The Guardian
• I'm sure plenty of other references can be found. Can we work together to include some suitable text? EdChem (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is truly astonishing that this would require explanation, but here we are. Source 4 in the proposed text, currently cited in the article, clearly states:

Several states also include bestiality as a part of general “anti-sodomy” laws, historical holdovers from homophobic legislators who considered gayness and attraction to animals as the same notion of perversion. The Supreme Court has struck down such laws as being unconstitutional, which can also block prosecution of sex with animals, Lassiter notes.

Source 2 in the proposed text clearly states:

State Sen. J.P. Morrell, who proposed the bill, said the state’s current law—which bundles bestiality and sodomy together as illegal “crimes against nature”—is unenforceable and thus needs to be updated.

While Morrell’s interest in separating bestiality from sodomy in order to make an enforceable and comprehensive law against bestiality … .

Morrell expressed his hopes that the bill, which will now go on to the state House of Representatives for a vote, will give bestiality its own clear law and allow law enforcement “to prosecute individuals that do this under the fullest extent of the law.”

“Our current bestiality law is in an unconstitutional statute, literally tied to the sodomy law struck down by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas,” Morrell told the committee.

Source 6 in the proposed text clearly states:

For Sen. J.P. Morrell, what has been frustrating is that opposition to his bill is rooted in fear that games are afoot to remove the state's unenforceable statute against "unnatural" sex in Louisiana.

Note that Louisiana is not a state that has repealed its anti-sodomy law. So the assertion that “[t]he problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality” is simply false as any complete statement of the problem. This aspect of the problem must be included, per the reliable sources.

The issue isn’t merely what Lawrence and the laws require and permit, but what the real-world effects are. It hardly requires a great intellect to realize that, when one part of a law banning multiple acts is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, confusion and uncertainty will arise among and between law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors as to the constitutionality and enforceability of the other banned acts. This is common sense, predictable, and quite thoroughly obvious. Moreover, and much more to the point here, it’s part of what the sources say. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Antinoos69, some of what Lassiter is suggesting (and also what you are arguing) reflects a weak understanding of how constitutional law actually works. Where a statute is facially unconstitutional in parts, applying the severability doctrine results in the remainder of the statute being preserved so long as its intent is preserved. Any suggestion that bestiality provisions are not preserved in this way in crimes against nature statutes that include specific and separate mention of sodomy and bestiality is wrong. This point is explicitly made in the judgement in MacDonald v. Moose, for example, where the issue of the effect of Lawrence on a crimes against nature statute was considered directly. If you look at the controversy in Louisiana, you'll find that the State Senators opposing the bill make this very point, that the bestiality prohibition is very much still in place following the Lawrence decision. Now, there can be edge cases where the exact reach of the Lawrence judgement is unclear, as was the case in MacDonald v. Moose (which was wrongly decided, in my view), and covering those edge cases is necessary and appropriate for this article... but bestiality is not an edge case and whatever you (or Lassiter) may think is obvious or common sense does not alter the fact that absolutely standard legal processes apply and that there is zero ambiguity about whether the Lawrence judgement, dealing with an adult's right to engage in private consensual sexual acts with another adult, has any influence on the constitutionality of a prohibition on bestiality. Lawrence may pose a problem in one very arrow situation: if a crimes against nature statute outlaws sodomy and uses a very old fashioned meaning which implicitly included penetration of non-human animals and did not provide a clear definition of the term. Even in such a case, the implicit anti-bestiality provision may survive if a Court recognised that the statute had been previously interpreted as covering both consensual acts between adults and the non-consensual-by definition act of sexual penetrating or being penetrated by a non-human animal, as only the former is constitutionally protected by Lawrence.

To forestall an argument, anything added to or in the article needs the support of reliable sources, etc. Also, just because a reliable source said it doesn't make it true, and politicians and lobbyists have been known to make incorrect / inaccurate statements, to offer distortions to advance their agendas, and even to lie (Shocking, I know). What is needed here is to restructure to focus on the effect of the Lawrence judgement on crimes against nature statutes outside of Texas, because SCOTUS only decides the issues before it and so issued no direct ruling on the constitutionality of any law beyond the one in Texas. EdChem (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Astonishing! It’s as though you never read my post. (Start with the last two paragraphs.) Can you comprehend that there is a very profound difference between legal theory, on the one hand, and what individual law enforcement officers, prosecutors, legislators, and even judges do or believe, on the other? Both matter here, not just the one. If Lawrence has actually in the real world caused some cop, prosecutor, or judge to scratch his or her head long enough to affect how bestiality is handled at least some of the time in the criminal justice system, then that is relevant to the article, no matter how contrary to proper legal theory that effect may be. Also, for our purposes here, there is a profound difference between editors’ theories, babble, and original research, on the one hand, and what reliable sources are actually saying, on the other. It is not editors’ job to edit out the parts they don’t personally like or that offend their conceptions of legal theory as that theory exists in some pristine mental universe entirely devoid of actual human actors, or actors of any sort. Do condescend to come down to earth and its messy practicalities for a moment or two, then you may become able to understand all that actual sources (plural!) are saying.

Btw, I happen to posses some formal legal training myself, so you can stop wasting your time “explaining” the law to me. That’s not the particular point at issue. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Specific Proposal

Present text: According to Leighann Lassiter, director of animal abuse for the Humane Society of the United States, the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute. "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all," said Leighann.[66] As of 2018, 45 states have direct prohibitions on bestiality, while others may prohibit it under broader animal cruelty laws, according to the Animal Legal and Historical Center (Michigan State University College of Law).[67]

Proposal: In some states, sodomy was classified as a crime against nature and prohibited in laws that also outlawed bestiality.[1][2] With the anti-sodomy portions of these statutes invalidated by the Lawrence ruling, some were repealed without passing any separate law covering bestiality. Consequently, bestiality is not specifically outlawed in some jurisdictions, and is only covered by laws covering animal cruelty in others.[1] According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center in the Michigan State University College of Law, 45 US states have prohibitions on bestiality and/or broader animal cruelty laws.[3] Where there is not a direct prohibition, prosecution is more difficult according to Leighann Lassiter, animal cruelty policy director for the United States Humane Society, as it may require proof that the animal suffered a physical injury and as livestock are sometimes excluded from anti-cruelty laws.[1][4] The Society has been advocating for specific anti-bestiality laws, successfully in some jurisdictions such as Ohio where it has been shown to make prosecution easier.[5] However, untangling the sodomy and bestiality portions of pre-Lawrence crimes against nature laws has been controversial in Louisiana, with lawmakers opposing a more comprehensive anti-bestiality bill because they fear repealing the unconstitutional and unenforceable anti-sodomy law might follow.[2][6] State Senator Ryan Gatti described the anti-bestiality bill as a "Trojan horse" that "was written because the far left wants to undermine our other laws that protect family and traditional values that the people of Louisiana hold dear."[6]

1. Guardian ref, 8 December 2016
2. Harvard Religious Liberty Project ref, May 1, 2018
3. Current ref 67 from MSU Law School
4. Current ref 66 from MEL Magazine
5. Cleveland ref, 22 September 2017 - cleveland.com
6. Louisiana ref April 24, 2018 - usnews.com

Thoughts / Comments? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Any version that gives a better understanding of reality is supported by me. Lawrence cannot be seen and isn't seen as an inhibitor to prosecuting bestiality, that's a fact in understanding among the legal arena. It applies to private, consensual human sexual activity, nothing more, as evidenced in case law since the ruling. Like EdChem said, it's only when states repeal the complete statute that there can be issues. State lawmakers can choose to delete the unconstitutional portion of the anti-sodomy laws or re-write them completely, which some have done. It's pretty simple. If it was up to me, this wouldn't be in the article as I can find no other reliably accurate examples of claims that Lawrence somehow makes prosecuting bestiality a problem, and Leighann Lassiter herself provides no specific cases I can look at to support her notion that bestiality prosecutions have faced problems due to the Lawrence ruling itself. Teammm ^talk
_email 16:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the current text per my comment in the previous section. The original matter must be prominently included. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but notably, states are shifting to prosecuting bestiality as a form of animal abuse, as opposed to obscenity doctrine or the laws against nature scheme of things. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, the late Justice Scalia argued that state laws against bestiality – among other types of sexual conduct – might be difficult to sustain in light of the Court’s protection of sexual behavior. Moreover, because bestiality has been historically connected with the practice of many polytheistic and rarely monotheistic religons, the free exercise clause also comes into play. To me it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to only cover the majority opinion of the court without also covering the points of the dissent. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Text

Fixed text to read Lawrence et al. v. Texas, because there were multiple plaintiffs, and this is the proper caption of the case. The use of "Lawerence v. Texas" without the et al. signifies that Lawrence would be the only Plaintiff to the action. This is a matter of meaningful legal terminology. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal violates standard, Bluebook citation practices. Will be un-fixing. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct categorization

this article should not be in both Category:LGBT rights case law and Category:United States LGBT rights case law. This violates the basic principles of Wikipedia categorization, that an article should not be in both a category and one of its subcategories, unless the first category is non-diffusing. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization for how it's supposed to work. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The logical solution, quite obviously, would be to remove the category that comprises a subcategory of the other—rather than the broader category, as you have been attempting to do. Antinoos69 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the linked guideline makes it clear that for correct categorization, "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I could not disagree more, and am astonished to read an actual living person make such an absurd argument. In a case such as this, where both categories are very much on point and relevant, there can be no logical justification for removing pertinent information. Many readers will want such info provided at their fingertips. I cannot acquiesce to the removal of info in this case. Antinoos69 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the categorization rules, take that up on WT:Categorization and try to get it changed. In the meantime, the article should follow the rules that are in effect and not perpetuate category clutter. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You reverted the article while the discussion was ongoing and you had as yet failed to gain consensus for your desired change. That is doubly improper. I will give you one opportunity to undo your revision and gain consensus before escalating this matter further. This is not how Wikipedia works. You are not the final arbiter of Wikipedia.

As for “the rule,” it obviously envisions a situation where a subcategory is on point with regard to a particular subject but the broader category is not. That is not the case here. You are merely keeping info from readers for the sake of keeping info from readers. That won’t do. If you think otherwise, form a consensus for your view. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to include the category. It will help readers find what they are looking for. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Bestiality

While it is difficult to argue with edits made by @Tyhbvf, their edit removed reliable sources and inserted opposite reasonning in their place with no reliable sources to back it up. That's textbook WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cardbuff, I am not sure why you claimed the sources were unavailable, because I just clicked through them and they are live on the Internet. @Tyhbvf damaged one of the URLs and I've repaired it. Elizium23 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)