TBy David E. Ahlvers here has been an unfounded backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the sodomy law in the state of Texas. Many have interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision as the first salvo in the “constitutionalizing” of the gay lifestyle and the gay community’s right to participate in certain societal institutions, including marriage. Justice Antonin Scalia and various interest groups have portrayed the Lawrence v. Texas decision negatively. On the contrary, the court’s courageous and crucial decision is a positive step in fulfilling the promise of the U.S. Constitution: legal equality for all.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court found that adult homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals, have a right to engage in sexual relationships in the privacy of their own homes, without concern or worry of criminal prosecution. The court expects, as any private human being would, that “adults may choose to enter upon (homosexual and heterosexual) relationship(s) in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” There is no ambiguity: The court limits the scope of its decision to private relationships between two consenting adults. The decision will not foster public indecency or legalize public sexual acts; nor does it condone sexual relationships between adults and minors.

The court’s decision should not foster more fear of homosexuality; rather, it should help all U.S. citizens take steps toward respecting the existence of homosexuals as an integral part of the American fabric. The majority’s overruling of Bowers v. Hardwick and assertion that the state has no legitimate interest in intruding into the private lives of individuals, irrespective of their sexuality, can help in the generation of this respect. As Justice Anthony Kennedy asserts, “petitioners (and homosexuals in general) are entitled to respect for their private lives.”

The dissenting opinion wants Americans to believe that acceptance of homosexual rights should only come through the democratic process. As hopeful and rose-colored as this theory is, it remains a theory. The democratic process plays an integral role in maintaining the freedoms on which our society relies, yet history has shown the democratic process does not always successfully guarantee our freedoms. For example, blacks were not accepted into mainstream American society for nearly two centuries after our nation was founded.

Must all oppressed groups suffer centuries of public disdain and ridicule before being considered “part” of American society? Must all political and social minorities suffer oppression until they constitute a majority, or can persuade the majority they are oppressed? Oppressed people should not be expected to wait for the democratic process to guarantee their freedoms.

The homosexual community has struggled for years for societal and judicial recognition of our oppression. On June 26, recognition of the struggle began. At a bare minimum, homosexuals ask for respect: respect for our private lives, for our personal dignity and allowance for homosexuals, as a part of American fabric, to continue “(our) own search for greater freedom.”

David E. Ahlvers is the president of the University Lambda Law Student Association.

Send letters to the editor to [email protected]