Texas Court of Appeals strikes down homosexual sodomy ban on stat e sex equality grounds

[Volokh, Eugene]

        Lawrence v. State, 2000 WL 729417 (Tex. App. June 8) (2-1), holds
that a state ban on homosexual sodomy violates the state Equal Rights
Amendment.  Citing Loving v. Virginia, the court concludes that the ban does
indeed discriminate based on sex, and goes on to say that there's no
compelling interest justifying this discrimination.  The court doesn't
mention the obvious potential application of this argument to the state's
marriage laws.

        The dissenting judge argues that the enacters of the Texas ERA
couldn't have intended for it to apply to such classifications, and does
mention the same-sex marriage issue:

                [A]ppellants contend we should blindly adhere to the bare
words of the amendment, giving them absolute effect.  The irony, of course,
is that this is the very argument employed by those who sought to defeat the
amendment almost thirty years ago.  Opponents of the amendment, for example,
theiroized it would mandate the construction of unisex restrooms in schools
and government buildings, prohibit the segregation of male and female
prisoners, decriminalize homosexual conduct, and legalize same-sex
marraiges.  Most supporters of the amendment not only rejected this
construction, they ridicueld it.  Now, however after time has begun to
obscure the original intent of the amendment, what was considered a highly
unlikely, if not farcical interpretation, has been embraced by the majority.

                Any thoughts on this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000612/829d04fc/attachment.htm