Local scholars, activists say ruling could clear way for gay marriages.

Byline: Jeff Wright The Register-Guard

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned Thursday that the court's ruling against homosexual sodomy laws could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The response of local legal experts and gay rights advocates: He's right, and hooray.

"It certainly sets things up for the marriage issue," said Dom Vetri, a University of Oregon law professor who has taught a course on gay and lesbian legal issues for 25 years. "It makes it almost a surety that in the next 10 years or so even that barrier will fall."

"I think it's going to happen," added Sally Sheklow of Eugene, who teaches on gay issues at Portland State University and writes a self-syndicated lesbian humor column. "I hope to see it in my lifetime."

The court's decision struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states. Oregon is not among those states - having repealed its sodomy law in 1972 - but Thursday's ruling touches all corners of the country, legal observers said.

"As far as sexual orientation is concerned, the Supreme Court is basically saying that the culture war is over," UO law professor Garrett Epps said. "A number of these judges have converted to the value of nondiscrimination against gays."

The court on Thursday overturned its 1986 decision, Bowers vs. Hardwick, which rejected a constitutional right of consenting adults to engage in private sex acts.

Vetri said the Bowers ruling was often cited by lawyers and judges in support of a wide range of laws singling out homosexual couples. Thursday's ruling, he said, "now sets up the question of whether all the other ways that gay and lesbian relationships are discriminated against are constitutionally allowable."

For example, a gay person is often denied parental or custody rights to a child they've helped raise; can't sue for wrongful death damages if a partner is killed in a car accident; and is ineligible to receive property or funds when a partner dies without leaving a will.

Now, any and all laws that draw a distinction between married and unmarried people "are in trouble," Epps predicted.

Lane Circuit Court Judge Gregory Foote said he believes the ruling could prompt more people to make a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage. "The law marries people all the time that churches won't," he said.

Vermont (as well as Canada) now sanctify civil unions between gay couples, and New York and California are not far behind, Vetri said.

Several observers said the court's ruling was probably inevitable given the increasing cultural acceptance of gay life.

"I think they're just reflecting what society is already accepting," Sheklow said. "I'm glad but I'm not surprised."

Henry Alley, a UO Honors College professor and longtime member of the university's Standing Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns, said the increasing numbers of gays and lesbians who've come out of the closet over the years has had a profound effect on society. These days, he said, it's rare for anyone to not know at least one openly gay person.

"More people are humanized to others, and that couldn't help but reach the Supreme Court," he said.

Alley said he was reminded of the pervasiveness of gay culture last weekend when he watched the Tony awards on TV - where the top awards went to plays about gay characters and where the two gay men awarded the top songwriting award kissed on stage.

Vetri noted that even the federal government, when deciding how to dole out compensatory funds to those who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, included domestic partners among the recipients.

While others may chide the court's decision as coming late, Vetri and Epps said they were struck by Justice Anthony Kennedy's strongly worded majority opinion - declaring that the Bowers ruling is wrong today and was wrong when decided back in 1986.

"When they came around, they came all the way," Epps said.