From the full opinion of Lawrence v. Texas:
Bowers‘ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.Okay, I added the “…baby” part.
41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded, baby.
You really, really need to read the full decision to appreciate it. It’s a little astonishing to see the Supreme Court of the US citing books I’ve had on my shelf for years in a major decision. And Scalia’s dissent is equally astounding in its own way: it’s like seeing the most groan-inducing bits of an old alt.politics.homosexuality flamewar enshrined as national canon. As below, so above, I guess.
I’m really glad that this decision came down between election seasons, and I’m morbidly curious to see what form the backlash will take. But in the meantime: FUCKIN’ YAY!