Court Opinion

ID: 9855291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:25.246329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:35.319278
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion because I do not agree that the “moral welfare of the public” presents a compelling reason that outweighs the constitutional right of privacy possessed by all individuals in this state.
It is well-established law in this state that the right of privacy is guaranteed to all persons in this state by the Georgia Constitution, Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 197 (50 SE 68) (1905), and that this right cannot be overridden by anything short of a compelling state interest. Zant v. Prevatte, 248 Ga. 832, 834 (286 SE2d 715) (1982). While I cannot concur with all that is said by Justice Sears in her dissent, I agree with her that the majority opinion has incorrectly applied the lesser “rational basis” test and that when the proper test is applied to the facts in this case, this Court must conclude that the sodomy statute in issue here is unconstitutional.50
Georgia’s sodomy statute applies, without exception or reservation, to all of those consenting adults who freely and voluntarily engage in private in certain specified sexual conduct, including heterosexual, married couples.51 Any person who engages in “any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another,” OCGA § 16-6-2 (a), commits a crime that “shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.” Id. at *490(b). Those who engage in sodomy are criminals, whether they are a heterosexual couple married to each other52 or strangers of the same sex who first meet at a rest stop and then proceed to a motel room. The majority upholds a statute that applies to all individuals in this state on the basis that it furthers the “moral welfare of the public.”53 I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the “moral welfare of the public” requires this Court to uphold a statute that criminalizes all private, consensual sodomy.
Decided March 11, 1996 —
Reconsideration denied March 28, 1996.
Gerald R. Weber, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Jane E. Fahey, Doffermyre, Shields, Canfield & Knowles, Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., for appellant.
Cheryl F. Custer, District Attorney, Michael M. Hawkins, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Michael E. Hobbs, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Milner S. Ball, Harry H. Harkins, Jr., Jane Morrison, Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Remar, Robert B. Remar, Susan M. Garrett, amici curiae.
Finally, although not presenting constitutional grounds for striking down the sodomy statute, I would find OCGA § 16-6-2 invalid because criminal statutes like it, which are defined based upon the body parts involved during private consensual sex, which are ignored and ridiculed by the populace, and which are enforced with discriminatory selectivity, can only breed contempt and foster disdain and disrespect for the law, the State, and the law enforcement community.

 A ruling that the sodomy statute, OCGA § 16-6-2, is unconstitutional necessarily means that OCGA § 16-6-15 (a), which criminalizes the solicitation of sodomy, is likewise invalid.

 There is no question here of the involvement by minors in the prohibited conduct; there is no issue of money or goods being exchanged for engaging in the prohibited conduct; there are no public displays of indecency involved.

 It appears from the history of the sodomy statute that the current language of the statute was enacted for the specific purpose of criminalizing sodomy committed by heterosexuals. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 201, n. 1 (106 SC 2841, 92 LE2d 140) (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

 The State argues this Court cannot reach the issue of the application of OCGA § 16-6-2 to heterosexual couples because defendant does not have standing to raise that issue having been charged only with “homosexual sodomy.” There is no distinction between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” sodomy in the Georgia Criminal Code and the State’s argument must fail accordingly.