I read in Slate that a group of historians (led by George Chauncy) has filed an amicus brief for the appellants in the current Supreme Court case on Texas’ sodomy law. It’s an interesting application of gay historiography, including its constructionist and Foucauldian view of sexuality, to the legal issue of anti-sodomy legislation. Essentially, the brief argues that Bowers v. Hardwick got its history wrong - anti-gay sodomy laws aren’t a constant in U.S. history, because the category of the homosexual person is a later 19th century invention. My experience is that this sort of counter-intuitive argument is hard to pass off on people who, well, aren’t looking for a counter-intuitive historical argument to begin with. The brief is well argued though, so will be interesting to see if the Court even takes up that part of the issue. Meanwhile, I’m gratified to see historians whose work I’ve always admired (Chauncy’s Gay New York is excellent and John d’Emilio’s Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities is one of the standard gay histories of 20th century America) lend their voice to this legal fight.
No comments have been added to this post yet.