Lawrence v. Texas is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.52.23 ( talk)
I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content [1] 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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is a reference:
Carpenter, Dale (2012). Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
978-0-393-06208-3.
OCLC
761383909. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
--
Javaweb (
talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
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)
The article says that the majority opinion cites the "Wolfenden Report of 1963", which it does. However, according to Wolfenden Report and its sources, this report was published in 1957. In fact, the opinion confusingly says:
A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, § 1.
So is 1963 just a typo in the opinion, or is there some reason for them (and us) to cite this date? 81.98.43.107 ( talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement that "Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants" and a subsequent statement that all anti-sodomy statutes were invalidated need a more authorities source(s). While this interpretation of Lawrence appears in related articles and is a common interpretation, Lawrence expressly declined to consider the matter of statues with equal effect on homosexuals and heterosexuals. Wolf4NK ( talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-courtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I note that a section on bestiality was added added by AHC300, and in recent days has been removed by Jpgordon, re-added by Antinoos69, re-removed by Teammm, re-re-added by Antinoos69, and that addition further edited (sequentially) by Teammm and Antinoos69. Before we have any more editing / reverting, I thought that a touch of discussion might be nice. A few observations:
"Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all"has zero examples / evidence offered in support of it. If it does relate to the Lawrence decision, I think it is wrong... but I also think it actually relates to problems prosecuting bestiality under animal cruelty laws.
the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statuteis simply wrong. Some states had "crimes against nature" statutes that made both sodomy and bestiality crimes, and the Lawrence ruling makes the sodomy part of those statutes unconstitutional, but this does not alter the status of the legal prohibition on bestiality. The problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality.
Some relevant references:
It is truly astonishing that this would require explanation, but here we are. Source 4 in the proposed text, currently cited in the article, clearly states:
Source 2 in the proposed text clearly states:
Source 6 in the proposed text clearly states:
Note that Louisiana is not a state that has repealed its anti-sodomy law. So the assertion that “[t]he problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality” is simply false as any complete statement of the problem. This aspect of the problem must be included, per the reliable sources.
The issue isn’t merely what Lawrence and the laws require and permit, but what the real-world effects are. It hardly requires a great intellect to realize that, when one part of a law banning multiple acts is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, confusion and uncertainty will arise among and between law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors as to the constitutionality and enforceability of the other banned acts. This is common sense, predictable, and quite thoroughly obvious. Moreover, and much more to the point here, it’s part of what the sources say. Antinoos69 ( talk) 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Present text: According to Leighann Lassiter, director of animal abuse for the Humane Society of the United States, the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute. "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all," said Leighann.[66] As of 2018, 45 states have direct prohibitions on bestiality, while others may prohibit it under broader animal cruelty laws, according to the Animal Legal and Historical Center (Michigan State University College of Law).[67]
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]
Thoughts / Comments? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but notably, states are shifting to prosecuting bestiality as a form of animal abuse, as opposed to obscenity doctrine or the laws against nature scheme of things. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, the late Justice Scalia argued that state laws against bestiality – among other types of sexual conduct – might be difficult to sustain in light of the Court’s protection of sexual behavior. Moreover, because bestiality has been historically connected with the practice of many polytheistic and rarely monotheistic religons, the free exercise clause also comes into play. To me it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to only cover the majority opinion of the court without also covering the points of the dissent. 98.178.179.240 ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
this article should not be in both Category:LGBT rights case law and Category:United States LGBT rights case law. This violates the basic principles of Wikipedia categorization, that an article should not be in both a category and one of its subcategories, unless the first category is non-diffusing. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization for how it's supposed to work. ( t · c) buidhe 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to include the category. It will help readers find what they are looking for. Travellers & Tinkers ( talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
Lawrence v. Texas is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.52.23 ( talk)
I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content [1] 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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is a reference:
Carpenter, Dale (2012). Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
978-0-393-06208-3.
OCLC
761383909. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
--
Javaweb (
talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
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)
The article says that the majority opinion cites the "Wolfenden Report of 1963", which it does. However, according to Wolfenden Report and its sources, this report was published in 1957. In fact, the opinion confusingly says:
A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, § 1.
So is 1963 just a typo in the opinion, or is there some reason for them (and us) to cite this date? 81.98.43.107 ( talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement that "Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants" and a subsequent statement that all anti-sodomy statutes were invalidated need a more authorities source(s). While this interpretation of Lawrence appears in related articles and is a common interpretation, Lawrence expressly declined to consider the matter of statues with equal effect on homosexuals and heterosexuals. Wolf4NK ( talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-courtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I note that a section on bestiality was added added by AHC300, and in recent days has been removed by Jpgordon, re-added by Antinoos69, re-removed by Teammm, re-re-added by Antinoos69, and that addition further edited (sequentially) by Teammm and Antinoos69. Before we have any more editing / reverting, I thought that a touch of discussion might be nice. A few observations:
"Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all"has zero examples / evidence offered in support of it. If it does relate to the Lawrence decision, I think it is wrong... but I also think it actually relates to problems prosecuting bestiality under animal cruelty laws.
the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statuteis simply wrong. Some states had "crimes against nature" statutes that made both sodomy and bestiality crimes, and the Lawrence ruling makes the sodomy part of those statutes unconstitutional, but this does not alter the status of the legal prohibition on bestiality. The problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality.
Some relevant references:
It is truly astonishing that this would require explanation, but here we are. Source 4 in the proposed text, currently cited in the article, clearly states:
Source 2 in the proposed text clearly states:
Source 6 in the proposed text clearly states:
Note that Louisiana is not a state that has repealed its anti-sodomy law. So the assertion that “[t]he problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality” is simply false as any complete statement of the problem. This aspect of the problem must be included, per the reliable sources.
The issue isn’t merely what Lawrence and the laws require and permit, but what the real-world effects are. It hardly requires a great intellect to realize that, when one part of a law banning multiple acts is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, confusion and uncertainty will arise among and between law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors as to the constitutionality and enforceability of the other banned acts. This is common sense, predictable, and quite thoroughly obvious. Moreover, and much more to the point here, it’s part of what the sources say. Antinoos69 ( talk) 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Present text: According to Leighann Lassiter, director of animal abuse for the Humane Society of the United States, the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute. "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all," said Leighann.[66] As of 2018, 45 states have direct prohibitions on bestiality, while others may prohibit it under broader animal cruelty laws, according to the Animal Legal and Historical Center (Michigan State University College of Law).[67]
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]
Thoughts / Comments? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but notably, states are shifting to prosecuting bestiality as a form of animal abuse, as opposed to obscenity doctrine or the laws against nature scheme of things. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, the late Justice Scalia argued that state laws against bestiality – among other types of sexual conduct – might be difficult to sustain in light of the Court’s protection of sexual behavior. Moreover, because bestiality has been historically connected with the practice of many polytheistic and rarely monotheistic religons, the free exercise clause also comes into play. To me it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to only cover the majority opinion of the court without also covering the points of the dissent. 98.178.179.240 ( talk) 05:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
this article should not be in both Category:LGBT rights case law and Category:United States LGBT rights case law. This violates the basic principles of Wikipedia categorization, that an article should not be in both a category and one of its subcategories, unless the first category is non-diffusing. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization for how it's supposed to work. ( t · c) buidhe 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to include the category. It will help readers find what they are looking for. Travellers & Tinkers ( talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)