If it was ruled unconstitutional you'd think it would automatically be considered repealed. I suppose this could come into play potentially with our nut job supreme court though. If they decided to overturn the 2003 decision and it wasn't officially repealed it could come into effect again, so uh... good on Texas I guess?
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
234 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23538 readers
2351 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s sorta like how many states had abortion laws on the books ready to return to enforcement the second Dobbs happened.
It’s not as if a sitting Supreme Court Justice has speculated on getting rid of Lawrence v Texas - oh wait:
[W]e should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous' ... we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents.”
Clarence Thomas. Shithead would give up Loving v Virginia as long as he keeps getting to be a sex pest and enjoy fun yacht trips.
If it was ruled unconstitutional you’d think it would automatically be considered repealed
The change in law resolves a lot of peripheral bullshit, because the Legislature can long windedly close the door on municipal bigots who think they can rules lawyer homophobia at the local level.
Similarly, articulating bigotry back into state law can open the door for homophobic municipalities to harass gay couples.
considering the ban was never enforceable, this doesn't really mean much aside from telling us that the republicans who voted for it are all fucking bigots.
Why wasn't it enforceable?
Any chance it was like the "tripwire" laws for abortion that went into effect once Roe was lost?
That and it was also used to harass gay people. Cops would arrest them knowing the law wouldn't be enforced, but getting cuffed and dragged to jail for the night makes the point.
Why wasn’t it enforceable?
Because it was an actually an arrest under this law that led to the SCOTUS decision ruling these laws to be unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
So removing it from the state's legal code is a pre-emptive action in anticipation of Project 2025 in the wake of Thomas' comments after Dobbs (he specifically called out Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell to be re-examined using the same arguments in order to overturn them all).
I dunno, this sounds like liberty to me.
Good for those Republicans. The Texas Senate I'm sure will shoot this down. Still amazes me that Republicans are so damn concerned what happens in bedrooms. Like leave the bedroom alone and continue swiping on your Grindr account.
They have to have some social issues to force the populace to focus on whenever they're doing something blatantly corrupt elsewhere.
The winds of change are blowin’ down in Texas, huh
don't get too overly optimistic
The change winds are killing birds!!!
Everyone knows birds aren't real!
It'll never happen [...] * it happens * [...] Who could have guessed!
Figures. Gays for Trump prolly pissed rn.
I may be wrong, but I think you may have misinterpreted what the outcome here was. 12 republicans joined with all the democrats to vote to repeal the ban that was still on the books after being found unconstitutional back in 2003. So, a good thing, even if it is unlikely to make it further than that.
No, I got that. I forgot the /s.