A victory Thursday for the gay and lesbian community has led to an immediate effect on the court system.

Thursday’s ruling, declaring a Texas sodomy statute unconstitutional, caused a court of appeals to ask a Kansas court to review a previous decision, said Joel Taylor, member of the ISU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Alliance.

The case involved two males, ages 14 and 18, engaging in homosexual acts, Taylor said. The 18-year-old was sentenced to 17 years in jail, he said, but if the 14-year-old had been female, the conviction would only have been 15 months.

The ruling on Lawrence v. Texas declared the Texas law that banned anal and oral sex between two people of the same sex unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote.

The Supreme Court decision overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 case that upheld a Georgia statute banning sodomy.

“It’s simple sexual acts,” said Taylor, junior in political science. “There is really no reason why it [should be] illegal between two consenting adults.”

Three other states have laws banning same-sex sodomy, and nine states have banned it for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, Taylor said. All were reversed by the ruling.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the court, which was signed by four other justices.

“Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct,” Kennedy wrote. “When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the decision, but on the basis of equal protection since the Texas law only applied to same-sex activities.

Josh Reicks, president of the ISU Republicans, said the decision may lead to the possibility of gay marriage.

“I think the writing is on the wall for gay marriage,” said Reicks, senior in political science. “It opens a wide door for [homosexuals] to drive through.”

There is no legal way to stop gay marriage because of the ruling, Reicks said.

He said a gay couple could provide a good home, though.

The ruling will raise the issue of gay marriage, Taylor said.

“[The decision] is definitely helping push the debate on gay marriage to the spotlight,” Taylor said.

The senate majority leader has already put forth a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Taylor said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, voted against the majority.

In his dissent, Scalia wrote that the right to homosexual sodomy was not part of our country’s decision.

“Today’s opinion … has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct,” Scalia wrote.

Taylor said the “homosexual agenda” Scalia speaks of goes back to a parody article written in the 1970s or 1980s that was based on fears of the conservatives and far right.

Taylor said he expected the laws banning same-sex acts to be found unconstitutional.

“It’s a clear-cut case when it comes to the 14th Amendment,” Taylor said, citing the due process and equality clauses of the Amendment.

Kennedy had pushed for the case to go through, Taylor said.

Reicks said Kennedy is usually conservative.

“Kennedy is very conservative, but a few times has not looked to the constitution for opinion, but given his opinion because it is his opinion,” Reicks said.

“[There is] no basis in the Constitution for striking down the law.”