In 1994, New Orleans attorney John Rawls took an ad out in Impact (a New Orleans-based LGBT+ newspaper) announcing he was planning a civil lawsuit to challenge the state’s “Crimes Against Nature” law and asking, “We would like to hear from the following groups of people as possible plaintiffs: people who have the courage to reveal their sexual orientation and fight openly in court for their rights.”
Just years before this clarion call, Rawls himself found such courage elusive. Originally from Florida, Rawls served as a Captain in Vietnam before becoming an attorney. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, in the deep South, conditioned Rawls to keep his sexuality hidden, like a shameful secret. This conditioning was reinforced by his military service. Rawls was so closeted, he married and divorced twice. And then he came out.
Young people today may have a difficult time appreciating how much courage coming out took back then. For Rawls, it meant giving up his successful legal career. Or so he thought at the time. Convinced it was not possible to be an “out” attorney, Rawls moved to New Orleans to explore his newfound sexuality and secured a job running a bar supply business. Eventually, Rawls resumed his legal career and made history in the process.
Rawls’ ad calling for plaintiffs was successful. Under the auspices of an organization called LEGAL (Louisiana Electorate of Gays and Lesbians), Rawls filed his lawsuit in Orleans Civil District Court on June 13, 1994, and listed ten plaintiffs: Larry Best, Lloyd Bowers, John Rawls, Joan Ladnier, Kevin Besse, Jeanne LeBlanc, John Foster, Rhonda Leco, Johnny Baxley, and Rick Cosgriff.
Rawls persuaded Edwards to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against gays and
lesbians in state government and those contracting with the state. Photographer unknown. Photo
courtesy of Brian Hartig.
Shortly after the suit was filed, Judge Robin Giarrusso issued a Temporary Restraining Order barring enforcement of the sodomy statute. Conviction under the law carried fines up to $2,000 and prison time of up to five years. The case eventually became a class-action suit against prosecutors across the state. The trial lasted five days and made headlines. Rawls’ case would consist of three chief claims: (a) the sodomy statute is rooted in religion, (b) homosexuality is natural, and (c) the law’s application is used to target the gay and lesbian community.
The law’s religious origins were important because of its Constitutional implications regarding not only the First Amendment, but also the right to privacy implied in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opening statement, Rawls said he would prove that the very concept of crimes against nature was religious in nature and therefore unconstitutional. He called the statute “a religious idea introduced by a group of monks for political purposes in the 1100s and 1200s” and adopted into English common law by King Henry VIII to “prove he was more Catholic than the Pope.”
Mark Jordan, a theologian and professor of medieval studies from the university of Notre Dame, then testified to the law’s religious roots. Referring to Catholic theology, he said, “Sodomites are often said … to be incurable. That is, there is nothing you can do except burn them at the stake.”
To establish the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, Rawls called several expert witnesses. L.S.U. Medical Center neurobiologist Dr. Cheryl Weill testified that homosexuality was biologically determined during pregnancy. Her testimony was corroborated by J. Michael Bailey, a genetics researcher, who testified that sexuality is biologically/genetically determined and not a choice. Veterinarian Dr. Michael Scott Williams testified to the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
In order to prove the law was discriminatory, Rawls had to establish that gays and lesbians were a distinct group with an identifiable culture and history. To this end he called to the stand historian Roberts Batson, sociologist Joel Devine, and bookseller Alan Robinson.
Batson provided the court with a historical overview of how the law had been used to harass gays and lesbians. Plaintiff Jean LeBlanc explained how the law not only struck fear in the hearts of gays and lesbians, but also had negative consequences, “I forced myself to date. I forced myself into affairs that were detrimental. I was not myself. I was playing a role. I felt like a fugitive. I felt hunted and furtive.”
LeBlanc’s testimony was followed by fellow plaintiff Johnny Baxley, who recounted the homophobic slurs and taunts of police officers as they arrested him for violating the statute. This testimony was followed by that of Gene Adams, owner of a bathhouse in the French Quarter that had previously been raided by police. Larry Best took the stand and told the court how the law had harmed him by creating and propagating a “climate of intolerance.” Best recounted being outed at work, losing business clients, having to leave his law firm, and getting divorced from his wife.
In rebuttal to the claim that the sodomy statute unfairly stigmatizes gays and lesbians, the state argued that the law, which forbids oral and anal sex, applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples; therefore, since the law does not specifically mention same-sex pairings, it is not discriminatory. The plaintiffs refuted that claim, however, by comparing the sodomy law to the bygone law that forbade interracial marriage. Proponents of the ban on interracial marriage used the same argument now being advanced by the state—that the law did not specifically mention blacks and was therefore perfectly fine.
Rawls put on the stand a cultural anthropologist from the University of Southern California, Walter Williams, who said, “but by their presence in the law books, they served that precise function.” Williams then cited other countries that had repealed sodomy laws and testified about how different cultures throughout history have viewed homosexuality.
The state’s attorney, Assistant Attorney General Charlie Braud, called only one witness to defend the statute on behalf of the state—a “Christian Homosexual Healer,” who claimed homosexuals could be healed of their “sickness” through prayer. John Rawls called Davis Eagle as a rebuttal witness who told the court of “the seven years he had been the victim of Christian healing programs to no avail.”
Judge Carolyn Gill-Jefferson was persuaded by the plaintiffs’ case and on March 17, 1999, ruled the sodomy law unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to district court. The Fourth District upheld the judge’s ruling.
The case was then appealed to the state Supreme Court. On July 6, 2000, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a separate, criminal case that also challenged the constitutionality of the sodomy statute. This case involved a man who had been acquitted of rape but found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a woman.
The Fourth Circuit ruled the sodomy statute unconstitutional in that case, but that decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. In a 5-2 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the sodomy law was constitutional and in light of its decision in the Smith case, remanded the LEGAL case back to district court for reconsideration.
As the state Supreme Court heard the case, it became obvious to all in the courtroom a majority of the justices were not going to rule the law unconstitutional. Rawls became increasingly frustrated as the case unfolded and even wept during closing arguments.
Judge Gill-Jefferson noted, “The Supreme Court did not give a compelling reason why the state should control private, noncommercial, consensual sexual behavior between adult human beings.”
On March 23, 2001, the Fourth District again, in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Smith case, upheld Gill-Jefferson’s original ruling.
On March 28, 2002, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth District’s ruling. The sodomy statute would stand.
For a little while, that is.
The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, a landmark case that invalidated sodomy laws nationwide.
John Rawls had been right all along.
Rawls would later retire and move to Laramie, Wyoming, where he died on June 15, 2023, at the age of 79.
