Issue: Whether a Texas statute that makes sodomy between same-sex couples
a crime is constitutional
Index Topics: Sexual Orientation (sodomy)
Facts: This is an action challenging the constitutionality of a Texas
law that makes sodomy between same-sex couples a crime. In this case, the plaintiffs
were arrested when a police officer observed them engaging in consensual sexual
activity in one of their homes. They were convicted of violating the Homosexual
Conduct Statute, which reads: "A person commits an offense if he engages
in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The
petitioners appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the
Fourteenth District of Texas initially held that the petitioners' convictions
violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution. However, the Fourteenth
Court then reheard the case en banc and upheld the statute, reinstating the ban
on homosexual sodomy. The case was then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals who refused to hear the case. The defendants then appealed to the US Supreme
Court to have their convictions overturned and the law deemed unconstitutional,
and the Supreme Court granted cert. The issues before the Court involve whether
there is a legitimate privacy right of homosexuals that is violated by the statute
and whether there is a violation of equal protection principles because the law
only addresses this conduct between same sex couples.
APA's Position: APA submitted a brief (and the American Psychiatric
Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the Texas Chapter of
NASW joined in) arguing that the proscribed sexual conduct is a normal part of
the intimate relations of Americans and that same-sex sexual conduct is an important
part of long-term intimate relationships for many gay men and lesbians. APA's
participation in this case is an extension of its involvement as amici in earlier
cases that challenge anti-sodomy statutes (including Bowers v. Hardwick, addressed
by the US Supreme Court in 1986). The brief explains the nature of sexual orientation,
noting that homosexuality is common, generally not chosen and is resistant to
change, is not a disorder, and does not affect one's ability to contribute to
society. The brief also argues that suppressing sexual intimacy among same-sex
partners would deprive gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to participate
in fundamental aspects of human experience. The brief further argues that anti-sodomy
statutes like the Texas statute reinforce prejudice, discrimination, and violence
against gay men and lesbians.
Results: The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, concluded that Texas' "homosexual conduct" law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and overruled its prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld antisodomy laws.
PsycLAW Homepage
