A long time ago a cousin of mine, wrote this. It's a very important read.

[dave123williams]

The following is the summation from an decision my cousin Charles made, a long time ago. In 1992.

He was a Justice on the Supreme Court of the State of Kentucky.

It was the majority opinion in a case called Kentucky v. Wesson. This decision said, essentially, that it's legal to be gay in Kentucky, and that criminally charging someone for being gay, was in and of itself illegal.

It took a lot of guts for Charles to author this, and the whole family is so proud of him for having done it. If you've ever been to Kentucky, you'll understand our respect for his courage.

So you are aware, this is the underlying foundation (and cited in the majority opinion) for a much more important case that went before the Supreme Court, called Lawrence v. Texas. Some of you may have heard of that one.

So, in watching this bigot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303642.html

testify on television before Congress today, I felt compelled to share what Charlie wrote:


"In the final analysis we can attribute no legislative purpose to this statute except to single out homosexuals for different treatment for indulging their sexual preference by engaging in the same activity heterosexuals are now at liberty to perform. By 1974 there had already been a sea change in societal values insofar as attaching criminal penalties to extramarital sex. The question is whether a society that no longer criminalizes adultery, fornication, or deviate sexual intercourse between heterosexuals, has a rational basis to single out homosexual acts for different treatment. Is there a rational basis for declaring this one type of sexual immorality so destructive of family values as to merit criminal punishment whereas other acts of sexual immorality which were likewise forbidden by the same religious and traditional heritage of Western civilization are now decriminalized? If there is a rational basis for different treatment it has yet to be demonstrated in this case. We need not sympathize, agree with, or even understand the sexual prefence of homosexuals in order to recognize their right to equal treatment before the bar of criminal justice.
To be treated equally by the law is a broader constitutional value than due process of law as discussed in the Bowers case. We recognize it as such under the Kentucky Constitution, without regard to whether the United States Supreme Court continues to do so in federal constitutional jurisprudence. "Equal Justice Under Law" inscribed above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, expresses the unique goal to which all humanity aspires. In Kentucky it is more than a mere aspiration. It is part of the "inherent and inalienable" rights protected by our Kentucky Constitution. Our protection against exercise of "arbitrary power over the ... liberty ... of freemen" by the General Assembly (Section Two) and our guarantee that all persons are entitled to "equal" treatment (in Section Three) forbid a special act punishing the sexual preference of homosexuals. It matters not that the same act committed by persons of the same sex is *502 more offensive to the majority because Section Two states such "power ... exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority."

The purpose of the present statute is not to protect the marital relationship against sexual activity outside of marriage, but only to punish one aspect of it while other activities similarly destructive of the marital relationship, if not more so, go unpunished. Sexual preference, and not the act committed, determines criminality, and is being punished. Simply because the majority, speaking through the General Assembly, finds one type of extramarital intercourse more offensive than another, does not provide a rational basis for criminalizing the sexual preference of homosexuals.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the Fayette Circuit Court, and the judgment on appeal from the Fayette District Court."

Here's the whole opinion, if you're interested.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/kentucky/commonwealth-v-wasson