Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

The LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's

The article says:

> An organized American LGBT-rights movement emerged in the initial decades after the Second World War

But if you follow the LGBT link is says right off that the LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's.

It was called the gay rights movement before then. It was a much smaller tent back then.

I think we should call the movement by what it was called back then -- not what it has evolved into.

[Just as, when we talk about certain people during the Civil War we refer to them as abolitionists -- not civil rights protesters.]

So I propose we change it to say gay-rights not LGBT-rights 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.52.23 (talk)

Does anyone object if I change LGBT to gay in the above referenced sentence? Hoping To Help (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, lesbians were involved as early as the 1950s. But the point is still correct: nobody called it "LGBT rights" until more recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the organized gay rights movement in the US started as early as the 1900s, check LGBT rights in the United States for the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.94.146 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Holding section

I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content [1] as it was improperly done and I had no idea if the intended change was appropriate e.g. if the holding section comes from the actual ruling. However after looking around, I've foind nothing similar and it does seem sort of out of place to me so removed it properly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=253603600&oldid=253599682 ]. However I'm not voicing an opinion on whether it should stay or go Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical editing needed

The following sentence needs some semi-colons or may need to be broken into several shorter sentences:

Sexual liberty proponents believe that Lawrence explicitly analogized same-sex sodomy and mixed-sex sodomy, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (O'Connor, J. concurring). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.221.223 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you find this too ... homophobic?

Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private.

Why wouldn't one write "...to criminalize same-sex sexual intercourse between consenting..."??? Or something else. I find this part to be offensive and change it. Hope you don't mind. Այնշախոր (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the state laws at the time of Lawrence specifically targeted "sodomy", so using anything else amounts to original research. Further, the vagueness of "sodomy" under state law was one of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled as it did: same-sex activity was being prosecuted while different-sex activity that fell under the different statutory definitions of "sodomy" were not. The use of that word is correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)