Newspapers / The Front Page (Raleigh, … / July 4, 2003, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Front Page (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Past Out: Who was Jean Coctaeu?, p.28 Opinion: Ed Madden on “The Day We Changed”, p.14 July 4, 2003 Serving the Carolinas’ Gay & Lesbian Communities Since 1979 Volume 24. Number 14 NC Groups Applaud Supreme Court’s Sodomy Ruling RALEIGH (AP) — Gay-rights advo cates in North Carolina cheered a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a law banning gay sex in Texas. The rul ing also appears to label North Carolina's anti-sodomy law unconsti tutional as well. North Carolina is one of nine states that ban oral and anal sex for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. The crime against nature law was unevenly enforced in North Carolina and has been used to deny housing to gay couples or to rule against homosex uals in child custody cases, the advo cates said. "We are just ecstatic that the CAN (crime against nature) Taw is gone and we will not have to deal with this dis crimination," said Jo Wyrick, executive director for the Equality NC political, action committee, a gay-rights group that had sought unsuccessfully for years to get the law changed. "This ruling very clearly invalidates North Carolina's law," she added. In a 6-3 decision, the high court determined that the Texas law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy by making illegal something that two adults engaged in with full and mutual consent. In both Carolinas, crime against-nature laws made it a felony for homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples to have anal or oral sex. The Crime was a misdemeanor in Texas, and applied only against gay people. Last year, more than 1,300 people in North Carolina were charged with attempting, soliciting or committing a crime against nature, according to court records. Those charged included not only gays but also unmarried hetero sexual couples and people engaged in prostitution. S.C. figures were not avail able. N.C. gay rights advocates said the laws were unevenly applied to gays. In one high-profile case, the N.C. Supreme Court in 1998 ruled that a judge could disqualify a father from custody in a divorce case because he was gay. The court cited an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding an anti-sodomy law Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, who has introduced bills over the years to exempt consenting adults from North Carolina's sodomy law, said this ruling makes the state law unenforceable. Attorney General Roy Cooper said a cursory examination appears to show the "opinion casts serious constitution al doubt on North Carolina's law." Cooper said he would confer with district attorneys before deciding whether law enforcement should con tinue charging people under the statute. If determined to be unenforce able, the moot law will remain on the books until the General Assembly alters or eliminates it. This ruling "will take that silly 'You're gay; you're a felon' argument out of the mix, which never should have been there in the first place," said Connie Vetter, a Charlotte lawyer and member of the Mecklenburg Gay and Lesbian Political Action Committee. "It tells everybody, 'These are people whose lives deserve privacy, deserve respect and deserve equality,'" she told the Charlotte Observer (6/27/03). "That is huge in terms of a societal shift." continued on page 15 Gays in New York City celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling overturning the 13 remaining state laws that banned gay. ' Full details inside page 16 Photo by Andres Duque/Wockner News SC Law Also Overturned COLUMBIA (AP) — South Carolina's law prohibiting sodomy was struck down by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying that the law was an unconstitu tional violation of privacy. The law was rarely enforced in South Carolina, and several officials said they had never heard of anyone here being charged with consensual sodomy. Officials say it's unlikely they'll be any movement to repeal the law — a felony punishable by five years in prison or a $500 fine — from South Carolina's books. ± Tyron Garner, left, and John Geddes Lawrence join a rally at Houston City Hall celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday, June 26, 2003, that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional. Houston residents Gamer and Lawrence were arrested in 1998under this law. AP Photo/ The Dallas Morning News, Erich Schlegel South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster disagreed with the high court's decision and said it recog nizes a "fundamental right" to engage in consensual sodomy. South Carolina, along with some other states, had filed a brief in support of Texas. University of South Carolina assis tant law professor Andy Siegel said "it is impossible" for South Carolina's law to survive this decision. "Whether South Carolina chooses symbolically to remove the statute from the books or to let it sit there as a dead letter, no conscientious judge could sus tain a prosecution under that statute," Siegel said. McMaster said the "potential ramifi cations upon our laws are complex and troubling." Siegel agreed, saying the ruling could affect gay marriages and child custody cases. Though seldom enforced by police, the laws are sometimes invoked by judges to deny homosexuals legal custody of their children, equal employment guarantees and other civil rights. "It will take away the easy argument that some courts simply say, 'You're conduct is illegal,' " Siegel said. Whether courts in this state are going to come to different decisions in cus tody cases or are prohibited from con sidering a parent's sexual orientation remains an open question, Siegel said. South Carolina House Minority Leader James Smith, D-Columbia, continued on page 24
The Front Page (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 4, 2003, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75