Another ergregious usurpation of power by the Supreme Court while basically enunciating butt love as an individual right.

I don't think that the overturning of the Texas Sodomy Case was the most important event of 2003. The social, legal and political issues revolving around the gay rights issue made it a polarizing one however. I believe that the majority opinion effectively overturning Texas's sodomy law was the correct one. Indeed, it should have been a fairly easy one; only the 3 most conservative Justices, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist dissented. The minority argued that Texas should have had the right to uphold the statue under the premise that they have a right to uphold traditional moral values. Scalia, who wrote the dissenting opinion, claimed that the ruling would call into question all morality based laws at the state level, including bigamy, incest, prostitution, and obscenity. It's not a strong argument because it relies too heavily on the slippery slope argument; it is assumed that the courts will use common sense when looking at these cases. The key issues in question here relate to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, specifically regarding a citizens right to equal protection under the law and the right to due process. We can have different opinions about homosexuality, but it was correct to rule this state law as unconstitution. Homosexuals have a right to do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes; laws banning consensual sexual relations conducted in the privacy of one's home should be eliminated. Unless if the behavior occurs in public and if it involves a lack of mutual consent, then these types of crimes should be prosecuted. The Equal Protection clause was violated in that homosexuals were made unequal in the eyes of the law by making a certain type of conduct, and only that type of conduct, subject to criminal sanction. They can't be treated like everyone else in other areas. Of course, politics was deeply involved in this case; issues like gay rights and abortion are hot. Scalia resorted to broad calls for a moral society and pointed a finger at the majority for signing on to the homosexual agenda. Politics aside, the sodomy case was unconstitutional. The Texas Legislature probably should have overturned it, but politics isn't a rational game many times; its playing to different interest groups and agendas on either side of an issue. It really isn't so groundbreaking as people make it out to be really. Just another skirmish in the culture wars.

Regardless of one's personal opinion of homosexuality, this was the right decision. The Texas Sodomy Ban was clearly a violation of the United States Constitution in that it prohibited ONLY homosexual couples from engaging in the activity. It is clear that the law itself was simply an attempt by Texas politicians to further dehumanize homosexuals. The practice of sodomy is very vague and broad in definition, and logically, if it is to be illegal for homosexual couples to engage in it, then it should be illegal for heterosexual couples as well. This was an important decision in that it sent a message to every state, not just Texas, that it must heed to the laws and principles of the United States Constitution, which includes equal rights and due process under the law.

A good reminder to Texas that they are indeed a member of the United States and not a sovereign republic. Besides, sodomy is pretty broadly defined, and generally hurts no one (barring sexual assault, but that's another matter entirely), so who cares if some men like to have sex with other men? The thought repulses me personally, but so do pork rinds, and they're not illegal.

An important statement that needed to be made. Not about sex or sexual practices.. but about the fact that a law has to apply equally to all citizens.