Court’s Sodomy Ruling A Rampage Into Bedrooms’ (Press, 2 July 1986)

A recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court has sparked significant backlash among gay rights advocates, who argue that the decision effectively criminalises millions of Americans. On 1 July 1986, the Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, ruled that the Constitution does not protect homosexual relations between consenting adults, even in private settings. This decision upheld a Georgia law that criminalises oral and anal sex, which can carry a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. Notably, approximately half of the states in the US have similar laws in place. Leonard Graff, the legal director of the National Gay Rights Advocates based in San Francisco, condemned the ruling, stating that it represents an "Orwellian nightmare." He expressed concern that the ruling not only offends the gay community but also infringes upon the rights of all Americans, suggesting it supports the idea of regulatory “sex police.” Darrell Yates-Rist, representing the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in New York, echoed this sentiment, asserting that the ruling has unjustly made criminals of millions, including heterosexuals. This decision is particularly significant as it marks the first time the Supreme Court has extensively addressed issues surrounding homosexual rights and sodomy since 1967, when it upheld the government’s right to deny a visa to a homosexual. The context of the ruling was underscored by the timing; it followed large-scale homosexual rights rallies held across the country the day before the announcement. The case in question was brought forward by Michael Hardwick, a 29-year-old homosexual man who was arrested for committing sodomy with another consenting male in the privacy of his home. Although Hardwick's initial lawsuit was dismissed, an appeals court had previously ruled that the Georgia law violated his privacy rights, compelling the state to justify the legislation. Advocacy groups have expressed their outrage, stating that the ruling fundamentally contradicts the principles of human rights, particularly the right to privacy for all individuals. Jean O’Leary, executive director of the National Gay Rights Advocates, highlighted the implications of the Supreme Court's decision. She articulated that it effectively denies gay men and lesbians a constitutional right to privacy, which she views as an example of judicial overreach. The ruling sets a worrying precedent for the protection of individual rights in intimate matters and has intensified the ongoing battle for gay rights in America, raising broader concerns about personal freedoms and privacy across the nation.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand