Perry can’t recall sodomy ruling

Perry.Rick

Gov. Rick Perry

In his latest gaffe, Texas Gov. Rick Perry drew a blank today when asked about Lawrence v. Texas — the landmark case overturning the state’s sodomy law — during a campaign stop in Iowa. ABC News reports:

A voter at a meet and greet asked him to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.

“I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I don’t, I’m not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would be — I’m not a lawyer,” Perry said at the Blue Strawberry Coffee Shop here. “We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever, but let me tell you, you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C., it’s not some Supreme Court case.” ….

Asked by Ken Herman, a columnist with the Austin American Statesman, for clarification on whether he knew what the case concerned, Perry responded, “I’m not taking the bar exam…I don’t know what a lot of legal cases involve.”

When told that the Supreme Court case struck down the Texas sodomy law, Perry said, “My position on traditional marriage is clear and I don’t know need a law. I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me.”

The Texas governor referenced Lawrence v. Texas in his 2010 book Fed Up!, calling it one of the court cases in which “Texans have a different view of the world than do the nine oligarchs in robes.”

In 2002, after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear Lawrence v. Texas, Perry told the Associated Press that he felt the sodomy law was “appropriate.”

“I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books,” Perry said.

UPDATE: Here’s the video:

—  John Wright

Bill would remove sodomy law from Texas books eight years after it was ruled unconstitutional

Rep. Jessica Farrar

It’s been almost eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sodomy law as unconstitutional in a landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. But the law itself, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, remains on the books. Bills have been introduced in every legislative session since then seeking to repeal the statute, but needless to say they’ve never passed. (Remember, the state GOP platform actually calls for the re-criminalization of sodomy.) This year, the 21.06 repeal bill has been introduced by Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston. Farrar’s HB 604, which was introduced today, would not only repeal 21.06, but also strike related anti-gay language from the Health and Safety Code. With a Republican supermajority in the Texas House, the bill is likely doomed again. At the very least, though, it should serve as a sobering reminder. Here’s 21.06, which Farrar’s bill seeks to repeal:

Sec. 21.06.  HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

(a)  A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b)  An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

And here’s the language from the Health & Safety Code that Farrar’s bill would strike:

SECTION 2. Section 85.007(b), Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows:

(b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must: …

(2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

SECTION 3. Section 163.002, Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 163.002. INSTRUCTIONAL ELEMENTS. Course materials and instruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include: …

(8) emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a
public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle
acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a
criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

Read the full bill by going here.

—  John Wright

Judges that will hear Prop 8 case called ‘a very good panel’ for gay marriage supporters

Backers of anti-gay California initiative say development means case even more likely to be decided by Supreme Court

LISA LEFF | Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents and one named by a Republican will decide if a San Francisco trial judge improperly struck down California’s same-sex marriage ban, a federal appeals court announced Monday, Nov. 29.

Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and N. Randy Smith of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were randomly assigned the landmark case from the court’s pool of 27 active judges.

The panel is scheduled to hear arguments next week over the constitutionality of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.

Reinhardt, a 79-year-old Los Angeles resident, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and is regarded as one of the 9th Circuit’s most liberal jurists. Hawkins, a 65-year-old Arizonan, was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Smith, 61, was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and keeps his chambers in his native Idaho.

Proposition 8′s sponsors are appealing Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s August ruling that overturned the 2008 law as a violation of gay and lesbian Californians’ civil rights. They argue that Walker ignored a U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1973 that held the U.S. Constitution does not recognize marriage rights for gays.

Observers predicted the panel’s makeup makes it less likely Walker would be reversed.

“Anyone who follows the 9th Circuit closely would say that this a very good panel for the Prop 8 opponents and a very bad panel for its defenders,” said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor who is an expert on the court. “I expect a 2-1 decision, with Reinhardt and Hawkins outvoting Smith.”

Proposition 8′s supporters had the same interpretation, and reiterated their plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

“Judge Reinhardt’s inclusion on the 9th Circuit panel adds more weight to what the Prop 8 Legal Defense team has said since this case was filed in federal court: We fully expect that it will ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land,” the California Family Council, which was part of the coalition of religious and conservative groups that backed the 2008 measure, said in a statement.

When they meet in San Francisco on Dec. 6, one of the issues the judges will consider is whether the ban’s backers had the authority to bring the appeal after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown decided not to challenge the lower court ruling.

Officials from conservative Imperial County have asked the 9th Circuit to allow them to represent the state’s interests if the panel decides that Proposition 8′s sponsors lack standing.

—  John Wright