SunDogg is interpreting Bowers v. Hardwick as the majority interpreted it. But it's not necessary to rely on a "right to sodomy" that may or may not exist in the Constitution. That's the specious argument that was made by Justice White. I don't know how may other Justices joined him in that.

Justice Blackmun said that the State of Georgia has no right to be in people's bedroom, period. The rest of the stuff has nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, the unspeakable crime against nature puts homosexuals in a special category ... which SunDogg apparently concurs with.

A state court cannot overrule the United States Supreme Court. All they can do is moot one of their own laws, but that leaves in place the precedent not just for the other 49 states but for that state as well. Legislatures can change their mind, depending on the politics of the day.

I would like to see the law changed so that gays are not second class citizens in the eyese of the Supreme Court. The unspeakable acts I commit in the privacy of my bedroom are my business, not yours. And certainly not the government's. As Justice Blackmun remarked, every citizen's primary right is the right to be left alone.

I am not in any special category, and don't wish to be in one. There is nothing "romantic" or "iconoclastic" about that.

Dwight grow up & get real!!! The Georgia state legislature that passed the anti-sodomy laws was solidly democrat signed by a democrat governor. Georgia hasn't had a republican governor in over 100 years. Can't you be man enough to criticize democrats when they sponsor legislation you oppose??

I wish people would stop saying things like, "Are you man enough to ...?" Manliness has nothing to do with it. I am trying to stop questioning whether I am manly or not. Suppose you think my mannerisms are effeminate? Should I change to please you?

You really mean to say I should have the courage to criticize Democrats. But that doesn't take a lot of courage, don't you think? It might have taken courage to oppose passing an anti-sodomy law at the time it was being considered. Maybe it passed unanimously because the idea of legalizing sodomy never occurred to anyone at the time.

Yesterday's news brought the report that gays are still legally second class citizens. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim from a homosexual whose supervisor encouraged his co-workers to ridicule and harass him. The court held that homosexuals were not entitled to legal protection from such abuse.

Which party do we turn to in the question for equal rights? Certainly not the Republicans. The Republicans are the traditional home of bigots like those Rutherford Foundation affiliates, the ones who believe that "unrepentant" homosexuals should be put to death.

Don't stay a Republican and work for change within the party. Leave that party altogether. Become a Democrat! Ours is the party of real inclusion. We won't cheat you out of your vote.

Our Liberal friend, Dwight, immediately attacks Penis2001 without ever responding to the question. This just goes to show you Dwight can't handle the message.

As for civil rights for gays, we do differ from the Liberal's need for group-based remedies and in perceiving ourselves as victims whose main recourse should be coercion by the government.

I think it is time for us to leave the plantation of liberal government and start acting like what we are -- a group of adults who want to live lives as normal and healthy as everyone else in the mainstream.

The question I'm ducking is: "Can't you be man enough to criticize democrats when they sponsor legislation you oppose??" (It has to be that question, that's the only one that was asked.)

I said I don't like questions that ask if I'm man enough. That's nobody's business. And it's not relevant to the question.

If the Democrats harbored homophobes the way the Republicans do, I would encourage gays to abandon them as well. If politicians want gay votes, they should earn them.

Legal remedies are certainly appropriate in questions concerning classes of citizenship. I'm not ruling out other remedies. If they work for you, knock yourself out.

I did not advocate government action as the only recourse available to gays, I simply don't rule it out. Coercion is an inherent part of government. Imagine civil rights in this country if that weren't the case. Let's see you get back your security deposit from your landlord if laws were only suggestions.

Dwight! The vast majority of gay men "HATE" effeminant & so-called nelly behavior. Most gay sexual venues and bars don't want 'fems' present'. These businesses are owned by hypocritical persons that share your leftish, victimization ideology. Could you ever critize a gay institution that harbors extreme animosity towards effeminant men?? You sound like you wish you were born a female and remain very bitter & angry.Blaming right wingers or republicans for your troubled life is a cheap cop out! Trust me, you will find scads of subtle discrimination within the various gay communities--guys like you would be the prime target!!!

Gosh, maybe you're right that I'd be a lot happier as a woman. But if I were going to be female I'd want to be young and pretty, otherwise why bother? If I have to be plain-looking and middle aged, I'd rather be a guy. It's something I've gotten used to.

Besides, it isn't that important to me that I act according to popular notions of how people with cocks (READ: guys) should act. I'd rather do what I feel like, whether you think it's correct or not.

By the way, this is the third time through this exercise -- you should have caught on by now. I said that I object to questions that ask if I'm "man enough" to do X, Y or Z. Manliness (or lack of it) usually has nothing to do with it.

I am man enough to hit the mint cake in the urinal. But heck, I've been practicing that for years! And I'm not planning on giving it up.

Dwight ~

If you are going to refer to United States Supreme Court rulings or those by the lower courts (i.e., 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), you should at least attempt to objectively stick to the facts in those cases.

In your March 30th Editorial, you failed to mention the fact the 9th Circuit found that Medina had failed to present evidence he had been discriminated against on the basis of sex (gender). The Court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not violated by Medina's co-workers or supervisor at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The Court did recognize that Medina, an openly gay male, did sustain verbal taunts and was grabbed on several occasions by several co-workers. However, the Court said Medina had not availed himself of other legal action under the law such as criminal assault and battery. The 9th Circuit Court as well as other Circuit Courts of Appeals have consistently held in other opinions that sexual orientation is not proscribed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Once again, it is far better to stick to the facts presented in those cases rather than editorialize on those opinions to buttress your own arguments that have merit -- but only in the Court of Public Opinion.

Medina's co-workers tormented him because he was gay, but the Appeals Court said this doesn't justify a civil rights action, because gay is not a protected class such as race, creed or gender. Gender has only recently been protected. I am not old but I remember things like separate employment listings for male and female.

The anti-discrimination laws are an achievement for humanity; they highlight our progress as civilized people. We still have more work to do. First there was consciousness-raising, then there were laws. There was nothing inevitable about the laws; it took a lot of work.

The Republicans are retarding progress in this area. It's always the Republicans! If they had their way they'd go back to help wanted male and help wanted female. As things stand, Republicans are the party committed to preserving homophobia.

Become a Democrat! Ours is the party of genuine inclusion. We don't run pageants or minstrel shows, and we won't cheat you out of your vote.

If you had read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion more carefully for the substance of that ruling, you would have gleened the following:

Had Medina been a heterosexual male and his co-workers and supervisor been openly gay, Medina would have prevailed in his case because Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does proscribe sexual harassment on the basis of gender.

It is particularly noteworthy that Medina had never availed himself of criminal sanctions against his co-workers or supervisor for assault and battery. Had Medina filed criminal assault charges against his co-workers and supervisor, he would have prevailed in the proper court.

A reasonable man or woman would correctly inquire why Medina allowed himself to be criminally assaulted for almost two years before he took any action whatsoever.

You got me. I haven't read the Medina case, just the story that made the local papers. The headline read "Court Says Gays Can Be Harrassed" or words to that effect. The text of the story said that the court specifically exempted gays as a protected group.

However, the details of this case - or any other - don't change the important fact that gays are second class citizens. That was held in the Bowers ruling, which is still the precedent today.

Who is more likely to remedy gay people's second class status, Republicans or Democrats? The Republicans on this forum have responded by denying that any such distinction exists, it's all in our heads! Clearly we can't look to the Republicans for any help.

That being the case, we look to the Democrats. This is a party of real inclusion, not pageants or minstrel shows. Join us! We won't cheat you out of your vote, like scumbag George Bush did.

The real 'scumbag' on this message board is Dwight not President Bush!!! Dwight remains a highly troubled and extremely frustrated individual who foolishly tries to blame all his disappointments & failures in life on Republicans. When will he 'fess up' to the fact that he would never be accepted nor welcomed at most gay businesses!! Furthermore,the democratic party hierarchy would reject him bigtime!!Elitism is not inclusion!The Hollywood crowd would avoid Dwight like the plague!! Dwight knows that illegal aliens are voting in large blocks overwhelmingly democratic-- does that bother him?? You sound like you are totally dependent on government services and are unable to fend for yourself. I will proudly remain an individualist. Dwight will continually whine, feel sorry for himself and think socialism is the panacea for his dismal lifetime accomplishments!!

The State of Massachusetts has decided that the Highway Patrol will no longer follow guys into the woods around rest stops. They're not legalizing blow jobs, but they do have different priorities. Rest stop cocksuckers weren't much of a social menace in the first place. Blow jobs are harmless good fun! It would be a better world if more people enjoyed them.

Do not expect such a progressive development to occur in a Republican-controlled state. If you put another man's cock in your mouth in Utah or Texas, the local authorities will punish you.

In some parts of the country it's even worse. Radical members of the religious right seek to put "unrepentant" homosexuals to death. Their chances of achieving that are greater with the Republicans than with the Democrats.

By the way, there's nothing quite like a woodsy blow job, especially in the summer. Getting or giving one has now become a lot less risky in Massachusetts. You can thank the Democrats for that social advance.

So you think the Massachusetts State Police are not going to enforce the state's sodomy laws? Maybe its time for another reality check here.

Massachusetts has two anti-sodomy laws (read: anti-gay ) on the books:

F272-34, Crime Against Nature
F272-35, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts

Since the Massachusetts State Police is the principle law enforcement agency, what assurance to you think people have that those sodomy laws will not be enforced against gays?

Unless the Legislature of Massachusetts repeals the sodomy laws, those laws will be enforced as they have been in the past. Public policy announcements, such as the recent one by the State Police, are dubious and facetious.

If you believe a state law enforcement agency is going to ignore its obligated law enforcement duty for ultruistic and benevolent reasons (i.e., respect for gays having private sex in public places), there are some bridges in New York and California I'd like to sell to you at bargain basement prices.
=============================================
With respect to the Medina v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. Case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rather than rely solely upon newpaper articles to get your facts, it is far better to go to the source itself. In this case, you could have read the opinion brief itself.

I believe you have the honest but mistaken belief that news articles by various writers are without personal bias. Sadly, as we all have done many times, we sometimes rely too much on what is written in the various media without ever challenging the conclusions reached by a particular writer. My suggestion here is for you to go to the source and read the legal opinion. You may or may not agree with the opinion. But, at least you will become a better informed person.

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 02, 2001).]

The interview with the head of the Massachusetts highway patrol was published somewhere on the Web, but I don't remember where. I couldn't find it again after I looked for it. The highway patrol guy said that his officers would continue to enforce state laws, but they would no longer hide out in the woods to catch cocksuckers. A triumph of good sense, it seems to me. I've never really understood the need to suppress fellatio so long as it's discreet.

I am now confused about what happened in the Medina case. It sounded like a supervisor encouraged his subordinates to fag-bash, but the fag in question objected. Courts flip-flopped up the line to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that homosexuality is not gender in any legal sense.

Did the 9th Circuit hold that Medina should have sought other relief? Perhaps he should cruise the rest areas in Massachusetts. It's become a lot safer now that you won't trip over cops on your way to getting your nut off.