[ OUR OPINION ]

Homosexuals deserve dignity
awarded by court

THE ISSUE The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Texas law that made sodomy a crime.

CORRECTION Wednesday, July 2, 2003 >> An editorial Sunday incorrectly stated that Hawaii law and a Honolulu ordinance prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodation, housing and union practices. While state law declares prohibition of sexual orientation discrimination in those areas to be "public policy," it specifically bans such discrimination only in employment practices. The city ordinance prohibits sexual orientation discrimination only in city employment. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin strives to make its news report fair and accurate. If you have a question or comment about news coverage, call Editor Frank Bridgewater at 529-4791 or email him at fbridgewater@starbulletin.com.

GAYS and lesbians reached a milestone toward public legitimacy with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down Texas' sodomy law and, with it, all other state laws making homosexual conduct illegal. In bold language written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court ruled that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." The decision finally and correctly identifies homosexuality as a human-rights issue.

The ruling will not necessarily lead to gay rights in areas such as marriage, partner benefits, adoption, parental rights and military service, but it should lend homosexuals more credibility in expanding their rights. Gay and lesbian advocates can make a strong case by pointing to an earlier high court decision that defined areas of privacy to include marriage, family relationships and child rearing.

The Supreme Court's ruling came in the case of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were convicted of engaging in "deviate sexual intercourse" in Lawrence's Houston apartment. Texas' sodomy law, and similar laws in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, applied exclusively to same-sex partners. The ruling also negates criminal sodomy laws in nine other states applicable to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

Hawaii, with some of the nation's most tolerant policies toward homosexuals, is not directly affected by the ruling. Hawaii does not have a sodomy law, and the state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodation, housing and union practices. A Honolulu city ordinance also prohibits such discrimination.

Hawaii voters ratified a constitutional amendment in 1998 that empowers -- but does not require -- the Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment had the effect of affirming a decision that legislators already had made prohibiting same-sex marriages. Legislators are not expected to revisit the issue anytime soon, but the Supreme Court's decision is now part of the arsenal of gay-marriage proponents.

The decision reverses a ruling made by the court 17 years ago, in Bowers vs. Harwick, which upheld a sodomy law in Georgia. "It removes the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority," said Suzanne Goldberg, a Rutgers Law School professor who represented Lawrence and Garner in the Texas courts. "Bowers took away the humanity of gay people, and this decision gives it back."

Although the sodomy laws rarely have been enforced, the implication that homosexuals are criminals was abhorrent. Those convicted could be prohibited from certain jobs and in some cases were required to be placed on state registries of sex offenders. No longer will gays and lesbians be subjected to such abuse, but they are entitled to more rights than they now have.