Absolute Right thing to do, there is no reason people should be arrested for doing something in the privacy of their own homes.

The Supreme Court FINALLY established the obvious fact that the 5th Amendment protects citizens' Right to Liberty, which may NOT be taken away without them actually violating someone else's rights.

A case arising from an incident involving an officer answering a gun violence claim entered the home of Lawrence and Garner who happened to be engaging in anal sex. Texas at the time had a statue criminalizing anal sex between same sex couples and the men were arrested. Instead of mearly striking down the constitutionality of the law on the narrow grounds of discrimination because is it discerned between same sex sodomy on oppositite sex sodomy, and sticking to even the precedent set in Bowers V Hardwick the court invented in all its grandeur a mythical right to sodomy- building of course upon the fabricated texts in prior decisions like Romer v Evans- cases that invented rights from the penumbra and emanations of the constitutional. This is Judicial Supremacy in all it's glory- just another sad benchmark in the failed application of our government. As fundamental law dissolves further into ordinary law our system of government canabalizes itself- we are now ruled by the dictates of 5 Super-Legislaters. The Anti-Federalist Robert Yates writing counter arguments to Publius in the federalist papers under the pseudonym Brutus was prescient in understanding the proposed constitutional arrangement would eventually lead to judicial tyranny in Anti-Federalist #11. Alexander Hamilton proved hopelessly naive in his retort in Federalist #78- trapping himself in the historical context of popular constitutionalism- that no longer exists. Yates in a lost debate predicts precisely the failure of our system: no errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications... this part of the plan is so modelled, as to authorise the courts, not only to carry into execution the powers given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions. During open arguements in Lawrence Justice Breyer dismissed all arguments based on any concept of public morality finally ruling that people in their own bedrooms have their RIGHT to do basically what they want, if it's not hurting other people. This is simply asinine theory that is negated by the realities of numerous laws that prohibit various behaviors that don't hurt others. But more importantly where in the original text were jurists authorized to dictate such pronouncements? This ruling is intrinsically an egregious violation of the constitution. It is simply another encroachment upon the original limitations of fundamental law and the trashing of the concept of having a constitution while usurping the power of the people to govern themselves. Breyer and those in the majority in Lawrence should rightfully be impeached for such despotic behavior. Scalia in Bowers wrote The court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that animosity toward homosexualtiy...is evil. It is simply disingenous for justice to argue that no concept of public morality should be considered while imposing his morality from the highest bench of the land. Sadly most Americans are so naive to the understanding of what freedom is, how it is preserved, and by what branch of government, that we have relinquished every aspect of our liberty to the tyranny of the liberal elites- Lawrence is just another step in the sad process.

I have recently engaged in an interesting and rather informative debate with another reviewer on whether there truly is a constitutional right to privacy. As that reviewer candidly pointed out, isn't every law (speed limit laws, taxes, etc) an invasion of privacy in a sense? Also, according to this reviewer, decisions of this nature should be left up to the legislature unless it is unconstitutional; then it is up to the courts to decide. The reviewer insists that the Supreme Court Justices only base their rulings on Constitutionality when it reflects their own political philosophies. As the reviewer pointed out--- is privacy a fundamental and constitutional right when there are hundreds of laws that invade our privacy in a sense? If the Supreme Court upholds those laws, are they not infringing upon our privacy. I would agree with that, but I believe that each decision should be evaluated individually. Very rarely are decisions based on constitutionality, but I believe that, at least for Sandra Day O'Conner, this was one of them. Inconsistancies in government policy and Supreme Court decisions (for instance, is the fact that women are not eligible for the draft a violation of the 14th Amendment?) are no excuse to dismiss certain cases. The question is, in this case, was the Constitution breached? I side with Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on this one: the Texas Sodomy Law was, Constitutionally, a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Sodomy Law banned sodomy between people of the same sex, but not between heterosexual individuals. Is this not the same as, say, banning the sale of guns to African Americans because they are MORE LIKELY to commit a crime? Obviously, homosexual males are more likely to engage in sodomy than heterosexual males. We all have our own evalutations and philosophies on the Constitution, and this is mine. The question also is: what was the legislature's intention when they passed this Sodomy law. Was it to promote the general welfare of the public, or was it to single out a specific group of Americans? I believe that the latter is true, because I cannot for the life of me think of a reason why what two men do in their bedroom has any effect on the welfare of the public. If it's about the practice of sodomy, then clearly it should be banned altogether. However, it is clear that in this case, the legislature's only intention was to single out homosexuals. We could debate all day about the right to privacy, but Supreme Court decisions are to be based on Constitutionality, and it is my belief that the Texas Sodomy Law WAS a violation of the 14th Amendment. As I wrote earlier, in many cases, the Court's decisions often reflect partisan beliefs, and thus create an incosistant record that includes a mix of decisions based on constitutionality and partisanship. However, that inconsistant record should not provide the Court a reason or excuse to not make the right decision on certain occassions, and it did in this case. Often, partisanship (which was very present in this case) reflects constitutionality, and I believe it did in this case.

I'm originally from Texas, and I'd have to say...that was the best thing to have ever happened to them (at least in more recent years). I agree with just about everyone else said, there's no point in repeating the same things again.

I don't feel anyone has the right to tell anyone who to fall in love with. NOBODY can help who they fall in love with. In my opinion, there are two types of love when it comes to finding a partner or spouse. You either love them on first sight, or you learn to love them. So in the case of overturning the sodomy ban, it was a wonderful choice by the Supreme Court. At least they are smart enough to figure out human emotions.

Redoedo said it perfectly. I don't care what you think of homosexuality, and I'm not going to go into all the it's-a-choice vs. it's-not-a-choice brouhaha. No one has the God-given right to tell a person who they can and cannot feel love for. That is arrogant and cruel. I'm very proud of our Supreme Court for doing the right thing.

What people do in their sex lives is no one's business but their own.

As much as I think those who practice sodomy are sick freaks, this was the right decision.

Great! I think gay couples deserve the same rights, respect, and protection as straight couples.