Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

message: 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)
thread_title:  Owens v. State 

message: 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)
replies: text: Does anyone object if I change LGBT to gay in the above referenced sentence?  Hoping To Help (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's 

message: I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content  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)
thread_title:  Holding section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammatical editing needed 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:
--Javaweb (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Don't you find this too ... homophobic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Five-justice majority' 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Present text: 
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]
# Guardian ref, 8 December 2016
# Harvard Religious Liberty Project ref, May 1, 2018
# Current ref 67 from MSU Law School 
# Current ref 66 from MEL Magazine
# Cleveland ref, 22 September 2017 - cleveland.com
# Louisiana ref April 24, 2018 - usnews.com
Thoughts / Comments?  Thanks, EdChem (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  16:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Specific Proposal

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

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Bestiality