Legalized Clex

[rivkat]

It occurs to me that, sometime before July 2003, the Supreme Court is going to strike down the remaining sodomy laws in the U.S. (There's a pending case, and most legal scholars think the outcome's not in doubt. Details debated on request, if I feel like it.)

Thus, as of that time, there will be neither an age legal obstacle (16 being the Kansas age of consent) nor a sexuality legal obstacle to Clark/Lex, though of course the social sanctions will remain heavy. This will, I imagine, cut down on the use of the hide-for-legal-reasons plot device unless a story is set pre-2003. I wonder how much of a difference it will make for fiction? I've only seen one story that really uses the law well -- one in which Lex already has a record, or at least a history, of violating the age of consent laws.

The thing is, I'll occasionally buy Clark thinking his parents would go to the cops if they discovered a relationship with Lex, but I find it more likely that they wouldn't, because there's no such thing as good publicity when it comes to Clark, and Clark's smart enough to know that (not much smarter than that, but smart enough), while Lex vastly overestimates his ability to control information. So the law never made much sense to me as a barrier.

Still, it could be funny to see a story in which the Kents find out, freak and call Ethan to arrest Lex, only to have him respond, in a variation on J. Edgar Hoover's line, "I regret to say that we are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way caused a public nuisance or a car accident."

Comments

oral-genital intimacy

[mustangsally78.livejournal.com]

Robin Williams was doing a bit on the molester priests the other night and sex under the age of consent:

"Remember, it's not just a sin, it's a *felony*"

Not applicable to Clex, but funny regardless.

Sally

[buggery.livejournal.com]

I certainly hope you're right about the outcome of that case... but I look at this Court's record, and I fear you're not.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't want to overstate my confidence, but gay rights are not what this Court really wants to crush. It's not, after all, a matter of limiting congressional power.

Romer v. Evans, the decision from a few years back striking down Colorado's anti-gay law prohibiting cities & localities from enacting antidiscrimination laws, was 6-3, a significant margin of victory. Armchair analysis: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy and quite possibly O'Connor will vote to strike down the law, replicating the lineup in Romer. Scalia's dissent in Romer accused the majority of sub silentio overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case in which the Court upheld Georgia's sodomy law. This year, I expect the 6 in the majority to admit that Scalia was right about that.

Interestingly, of the Bowers majority (one of whom later said that he was wrong), only Rehnquist and O'Connor remain on today's Court, while Stevens is the only remaining dissenter. Everybody else is a first-timer to this issue, though no one doubts what Thomas and Scalia will do.

[slightlights.livejournal.com]

Interesting—thanks so much for the analysis, and I hope it indeed comes to pass!

One question, please: does it seem at all likely that a Justice will step down before that, to be replaced by the current administration (not that an appointee always sticks with the politics of his or her appointers)? The timeframe does seem pretty short, at least.

Reinquist

[dossier.livejournal.com]

*is* expected to retire in '03, but it would be at the end of the session. With the Republicans in the majority and the White House, it allows for another Republican selection for the seat. However, I heard that O'Connor expects (and I believe rightfully so) to be named Chief, and would retire as well, if that were NOT the case.

Very exciting times legally speaking.

[linabean.livejournal.com]

See, the reason I'm optimistic about it is that, if they just wanted to keep the effects of the old ruling in place, then I think they would have declined to hear this new one. The Supreme Court doesn't like to issue rulings that just repeat their previous ones.

I think back in the 1980s, for example, the Supreme Court said it wasn't cruel and unusual punishment to execute the mentally retarded, but last summer the Court heard the case of a mentally retarded man on death row and reversed the prior decision. Since the ruling in the '80s, a lot of states have passed laws barring execution of the mentally retarded, and more and more members of the public have spoken against it--and the Supreme Court takes those things into account in their rulings, wanting their interpretations to be in line with real life.

Similarly, a lot of states have, since the Bowers v. Hardwick case, gotten rid of criminal sodomy statutes, and many more U.S. citizens don't consider at all "facetious" (as one of the justices said then) the suggestion that gay people should have the right to sexual intimacy. So I think the Supreme Court will take that into account, which bodes for a favorable outcome.

[grlnamedlucifer.livejournal.com]

>It occurs to me that, sometime before July 2003, the Supreme Court is going to strike down the remaining sodomy laws in the U.S. (There's a pending case, and most legal scholars think the outcome's not in doubt.<

Wow. I really hope that's the case. Those laws should have been gotten rid of a *long* time ago, so I hope it's actually going to happen now.