The U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional Thursday in a 6-3 decision, declaring the laws an invasion of privacy.
The case, Lawrence v. Texas, overturned the 1986 precedent case, Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrence v. Texas was brought before the Supreme Court because a Texas law criminalized same-sex sodomy.
In 1998 police were called to a Houston home after a neighbor complained of a weapon disturbance. When police arrived at the scene they found two men having sex and under Texas law they were required to arrest the men.
The ruling was declared as a major step toward equal rights for advocates within the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community, while opponents see the decision as a stepping stone toward the next big fight - gay marriages.
"This is the most important case the court handed down in American history," said Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the Triangle Foundation. The foundation, based in Detroit, seeks LBGT friendly legislation.
"The language that came from the Supreme Court speaks about equal protection. We believe that equal protection means everything - parenting, civil rights, law, marriage. The decision does not legalize gay marriage but it brings us closer," he said.
There are four states which prohibit same-sex couples from participating in consensual sex - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Nine other states ban gay and straight consensual sodomy.
Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt, said the court did not consider key arguments, such as health factors afflicting the LBGT community when reaching its decision.
"The courts need to be told as best they can that this is not the will of the people," Cropsey said.
Cropsey will introduce a bill in the Senate's fall term, which, if passed, would take the wording of the current state law and add it to the state constitution. The law impart reads, "Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman."
For the bill to get approved it needs two-thirds vote from both the state Senate and House.
Cropsey said the bill is necessary after the Canadian Cabinet approved a national policy earlier this month that allows same-sex marriages.
"A lot of people are very concerned about the Canadian Court decision and how it will impact Michigan law," he said. "If we put this into our state constitution, the decision is not going to change Michigan law."
Kosofsky said Cropsey's legislation will be costly and unnecessary because gay marriages are already banned in the state.
"It's wasteful to taxpayers, redundant, silly and offensive," Kosofsky said. "I don't understand why he's trying to do something so divisive."
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, based in Midland, said his organization was appalled by the high court's decision, and says he sees gay marriages as the next big issue the court will tackle.
"Private acts have very public consequences, and this includes homosexual behavior," Glenn said. "This court decision should be a wake-up call for residents of Michigan who support a traditional family environment."
But Frank Ravitch, a law professor at the MSU-DCL College of Law, said lobbying groups and Legislatures might be premature when it comes to recognizing gay marriages because the court's decision was based on privacy, not equal rights.
"People are immediately jumping on that," Ravitch said. "I don't think you can immediately leap from this to that."
Ravitch said the Supreme Court case immediately invalidates all state sodomy laws.
Michigan, while not being included as one of the 13 states that have specific sodomy laws, has a law that states "the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal." People have been charged with sodomy under this law.
