The recent landmark ruling handed down by the Supreme Court from Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all state laws banning sodomy, was absolutely necessary in protecting the sexual freedom of not just gays, but all people in the United States.

Some of the state laws in question theoretically covered oral and anal sex acts between opposite-sex partners as well as same-sex partners and some only pertained to same-sex acts, but all of these laws infringed upon people’s basic right to decide how they want to have sex and whom they want to have sex with. These laws were especially discriminatory toward gays since they were really the only people against whom these laws were enforced.

Take, for example, the situation that begat this case. In Houston, Texas, a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to the police, claiming that a man was “going crazy” in his neighbor John Geddes Lawrence’s apartment. Police went to the apartment, entered through an unlocked door and found Lawrence and Tyron Garner having anal sex. The men were held in jail overnight and were each fined $200.

Since Texas law only banned same-sex sodomy acts, it’s no surprise that these men were convicted. However, I’d bet you anything if the law banned opposite-sex sodomy as well and the police had walked in on a man and a woman having anal sex, they probably wouldn’t have done anything about it.

If the men were having noisy, bothersome sex, I could understand bringing a public nuisance claim against them just like I would against any couple who made too much of a ruckus, but the grudge Lawrence’s neighbor held against him most likely only pertained to his sexual orientation — lying about a weapons disturbance in his neighbor’s apartment got him convicted of filing a false report, but it is evidence of his apparent dislike for his neighbor’s lifestyle.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the primary dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, claims that the court “has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda” through the decision to strike down sodomy laws. However, that is not the case at all.

As I stated earlier, this decision protects every person’s sexual freedom. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who practice oral and/or anal sex regularly, despite the social stigmas attached to them and their reluctance to admit to participating in such acts.

Scalia makes it apparent through his dissent that just because some Americans believe that homosexuality is wrong, they should be able to pass and enforce laws against it in their state by outlawing the only way they can have sex. This belief would also apply to the current prohibition of same-sex marriages, since Christians have long maintained that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, and that any other sort of marriage is corrupt and ruins the entire concept of the nuclear family.

But Scalia’s belief that the majority of people should be allowed to push for laws that “legislate morality,” making laws based on the moral ethics of religion, is a slap in the face to the necessary idea of separation of church and state. Outlawing behavior that conflicts with the majority’s religious beliefs is simply a horrible idea, and it leads to the downfall of a democratic society.

Imagine if a majority of Christians in a particular state wanted to ban the practice of any other religion in that state since they believe that theirs is the one and only “true” religion. If states were allowed to legislate their own morality in this case, it wouldn’t be long before all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and whomever else would be sitting in jail for idol worship.

Creating laws according to the morals of Christianity is wrong, because it infringes upon people’s God-given right to free choice. We were all created with the ability to choose, and if Scalia believes certain acts that aren’t harmful to others (like homosexuality) are wrong, he can choose to not participate in them.

Scalia also claimed in his dissent that state laws against adult incest, bestiality and obscenity are called into question by this decision. However, bestiality involves at least one party that is not consenting to what is being done to them.

The law rightfully has room to step in when one person’s chosen action physically and/or mentally damages another person or animal. Consensual sex between two human beings should in no way concern the courts.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority decision to strike down sodomy laws was a much-needed step toward protecting Americans from imposed moral legislation — and though he obviously doesn’t want it, even Scalia’s right to sexual freedom has been preserved in the process.