More on gay sodomy:

An opinion piece from a Virginia newspaper discusses one of the harsher consequences of anti-sodomy laws: in the 13 states that still have them, such laws are sometimes used to presumptively brand gays as criminals. In one example (Bottoms v. Bottoms, a name I ridiculed last week), the Virginia Supreme Court in 1995 allowed a child to be taken away from her lesbian mother, in part because “conduct inherent in lesbianism is punishable as a Class 6 felony.”

This is important, people.

[via SCOTUSblog]

If you haven’t been able to tell, I’ve lately been engrossed by the intersection of gay rights and the law. (Perhaps there’s a niche for me there?) It doesn’t help that it’s Supreme Court Drama season. I’m currently reading Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court, which traces how the high court has dealt with gays and lesbians since it took up its first gay-related case in the 1950s.

Stemming from all of this, I present some law links, not necessarily gay-related:

How Appealing is a blog that obsessively tracks appellate litigation. I can’t believe I never thought to look for something like this until now. Pretty comprehensive.

SCOTUSblog is a Supreme Court blog run by a law firm that does lots of litigation before the Supreme Court.

Lesbian/Gay Law Notes is a monthly publication that apparently tracks and summarizes any and all gay-related litigation or law review publication out there. Wow.

Finally, for no apparent reason, Queer Vampires. Not law-related — yet.

It’s Gay Legal Day here at The Tin Man.

I’ve come across a New Jersey Supreme Court case from 1967 that basically legalized gay bars in the state. Technically, the court said that the state could not suspend a bar’s liquor license merely because “apparent homosexuals were permitted to congregate” there. (The case is One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 235 A.2d 12, for all you legal types.)

I’ve always loved the phrase “apparent homosexuals.”

What’s most entertaining, though, is the opinion of the concurring justice (there were no dissents). Here it is, in its entirety:

“PROCTOR, J. (concurring).

“Since the charges against the three taverns did not specify any particular offensive acts by the patrons, I concur with the majority opinion. However, I wish to emphasize that, although well-behaved homosexuals cannot be forbidden to patronize taverns, they may not engage in any conduct which would be offensive to public decency. In the record before us it appears that there was evidence of conduct (men kissing each other on the lips, etc.) which would form the basis for disciplinary action at least against One Eleven and Murphy’s had they properly been charged. A tavern should not provide an arena for the behavior disclosed by this record. I appreciate that the majority opinion does not say that such conduct will be tolerated, but nonetheless I am expressing my positive view that it should not be.”

Well-behaved homosexuals. Tee-hee.