Washington  – More than a dozen briefs filed at the United States Supreme Court this week oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas.  The briefs support Texas’s sodomy law.  Arguments are scheduled for March 26.

“These briefs were filed because we all support the unique stabilizing influence of marriage in our society,” said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, who co-authored a brief with the Center for Original Intent of the Constitution.  The Alliance Defense Fund is a national legal non-profit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, serving people of faith.  “Contrary to what’s been reported in the mainstream news media, there is a lot of opposition to the cultural drift toward condoning same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage,” Lorence said.

Lawrence v. Texas is a direct challenge by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund to the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.  Bowers said that individuals do not have a federal constitutional right to practice homosexual sex, known as sodomy.  Seventeen years later, thirteen states, including Texas, still clearly proscribe sodomy.  At one time, every state in the union proscribed sodomy.

Lambda basically uses two arguments for its case.  It argues in favor of an expanded right to privacy, building upon the court’s controversial 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.  It also argues that same-sex behavior is entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual behavior.  

“Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use this case to advance their agenda.  They want to legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’ to lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior,” Lorence said.

Below is a list of organizations that submitted briefs. You may view these briefs via an Acrobat PDF file. This PDF file may require the latest edition of Acrobat Reader. Click the icon to download it for free.with web addresses for their briefs.

Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General)

American Center for Law and Justice
Jay Alan Sekulow, Counsel of Record

American Family Association
Stephen M. Crampton, Counsel of Record

Center for Arizona Policy
This brief refutes the errors expressed in the opposing amicus submitted by the American Psychology Association.
Len L. Munsil, Counsel of Record

Center for Law and Justice International
Pat Monaghan, Counsel of Record

Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution
Michael P. Farris, Counsel of Record

Concerned Women for America
Janet M. LaRue, Counsel of Record 

Family Research Council & Focus on the Family
Robert P. George, Counsel of Record 

Legislators, State of Texas
Kelly Shackelford, Counsel of Record

Liberty Counsel
Mathew D. Staver, Counsel of Record

Pro Family Law Center
Richard Ackerman, Counsel of Record

Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas;
Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club
Teresa Stanton Collett, Counsel for Amici Curiae

Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association
Glen Lavy, Counsel of Record

United Families International
Paul Benjamin Linton, Counsel for the Amicus


RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

Harris County, Texas