ÿWPC`_ E#†ÖUN\ %ª 0°U†D·4û 0K 0Di ­ w­ 0Jà 0T 0^a Æ¿ 0#… AO¨ 0D÷ 0h; 0r£ 0| 0†‘ 0 1u§U, 0dH 0@¬ D3ìU, D/K Bz B—U+>´U*òB)DCE AMˆU*ÕeÿâbâÛD(pG ·#ê½&U6§)=Ý)Ý-# ÷1Î <ÊèEº²HnlKUÚOà/Rv~XvÓY˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ˆØP Ï< Êm ²P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ß Ñ$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XgØXXXÔÑ7€UXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP Regular1# Ô€œÔô3|x (û(3eí$¤¤Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XÆpXXXÔÑ7€ÆpXXdìdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(û3Âð$¢¢Ý ƒ Ñ!ÝÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XÆpXXXÔÑ7€ÆpXXdìdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò))))'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Monaco**'÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd$.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ€0ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔó óÌò òÔ€0¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ1 ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€0XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€0ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔIn€the€original€Verified€Petition€for€Declaratory€and€InjunctiveÏRelief€there€were€six€named€plaintiffs.€One€plaintiff,€ChadwickÏFreeman€Presswood€of€Knox€County€voluntary€dismissed€his€claimsÏagainst€the€defendants.€€In€addition,€original€plaintiff€Jane€Roe€wasÏreplaced€by€plaintiff€Jane€Doe.€€The€identity€of€Plaintiff€Jane€Doe€wasÏplaced€under€seal€by€the€trial€court€due€to€Doe's€concerns€that€sheÏwould€be€evicted€under€her€rental€housing€lease€if€her€violations€of€theÏHomosexual€Practices€Act€were€revealed€publicly.€€Similarly,€theÏidentity€of€plaintiff€John€Doe€was€placed€under€seal€due€to€Doe'sÏconcern€that€he€would€be€fired€from€his€job€if€his€violations€of€the€HPAÏbecame€known€to€his€employer.Ô€+ÔÌ ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€original€named€defendant€as€Governor€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee€was€Ned€R.€McWherter,€who€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€thisÏsuit€was€serving€as€Governor.€€In€January€of€1995,€Pursuant€to€T.R.A.P.Ï19(c)€and€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€24.04€€Governor€Don€Sundquist€was€substitutedÏas€a€party€in€place€of€former€Governor€McWherter.Ô€+ÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€billiard€hall€was€located€in€Unicoi€County€which€at€the€timeÏhad€a€population€which€subjected€the€county€to€the€provisions€of€theÏAct.€Ô€+ÔÌ fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€statute€provided€in€pertinent€part:Ìà à"(a)€€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€sodomy€when€he€performsÏor€submits€to€any€sexual€act€involving€the€sex€organs€of€one€person€andÏthe€mouth€or€anus€of€another€.€.€.€.Ìà à(b)€A€person€convicted€of€the€offense€of€sodomy€shall€be€punishedÏby€imprisonment€forÔ€Ô€not€less€than€one€nor€more€than€20€yearsÔ€+Ô€.€.€.€.€"€€Ga.€ÏCode€Ann.€Ô€Ôðð€16„6„2€(1984).€Ô€+ÔÌ üÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔArticle€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides:Ìò òSec.€8.€No€man€to€be€disturbed€but€by€law.ó ó„„That€no€man€shall€beÏtaken€or€imprisoned,€or€disseized€of€his€freehold,€liberties€orÏprivileges,€or€outlawed,€or€exiled,€or€in€any€manner€destroyed€orÏdeprived€of€his€life,€liberty€or€property,€but€by€the€judgment€of€hisÏpeers€or€the€law€of€the€land.Ô€+ÔÌ àÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔIn€support€of€this€proposition,€the€appellants€cite€òòò òRailroad€v.ÏCrideró óóó,€91€Tenn€489,€501„02,€19€S.W.€618€(1892);€òòò òState€v.€Haleó óóó,€840ÏS.W.2d€307,€312€(Tenn.€1992);€òòò òDearborne€v.€Stateó óóó,€575€S.W.2d€259,Ï262€(Tenn.€1978);€òòò òDaugherty€v.€Stateó óóó,€216€Tenn.€666,€674,€393€S.W.2dÏ739,€743€(1965).€€Ô€+ÔÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔSince€òòò òDavisó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€has€dealt€with€the€right€toÏprivacy€in€four€cases€all€of€which€construed€the€right€in€the€context€ofÏparental€rights.€€òòò òSee€Hawk€v.€Hawkó óóó,€855€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€1993);Ïòòò òBroadwell€by€Broadwell€v.€Holmesó óóó,€871€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€1994);Ïòòò òNale€v.€Robertsonó óóó,€871€S.W.2d€674€(Tenn.€1994);€òòò òSimmons€v.ÏSimmonsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€1995).Ô€+ÔÌ ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔSection€1€and€2€of€Article€I€€provide€as€follows:ÌÌò òSection€1.€€All€power€inherent€in€the€people„„GovernmentÏunder€their€control.€„€„ó óThat€all€power€is€inherent€in€the€people,€andÏall€free€governments€are€founded€on€their€authority,€and€instituted€forÏtheir€peace,€safety,€and€happiness;€for€the€advancement€of€those€endsÏthey€have€at€all€times,€an€inalienable€and€indefeasible€right€to€alter,Ïreform,€or€abolish€the€government€in€such€manner€as€they€may€thinkÏproper.ÌÌò òSection€2.€€Doctrine€of€nonresistance€condemned.€„€„ó óThatÏgovernment€being€instituted€for€the€common€benefit,€the€doctrine€ofÏnon„resistance€against€arbitrary€power€and€oppression€is€absurd,Ïslavish,€and€destructive€of€the€good€and€happiness€of€mankind.ÌÌTenn.€Const.€art€I,€Ô€Ô€ððÔ€Ôðð€Ô€Ô1,€2.Ô€+ÔÌ  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔOver€seventy€years€ago,€our€Supreme€Court€stated,ÌÔ€+ÔÌÔ€Ô€à8 àà8 àAt€the€very€foundation€of€our€State€is€the€rightÏof€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,Ïpapers,€and€possessions.€€Infringement€of€suchÏindividual€rights€cannot€be€tolerated€until€weÏtire€of€democracy€and€are€ready€for€communismÏor€a€despotism.€€The€enforcement€of€no€statuteÏis€of€sufficient€importance€to€justifyÏindifference€to€the€basic€principles€of€ourÏgovernment.€€The€better€class€of€our€ancestorsÏat€one€time€thought€€there€could€be€no€moreÏheinous€sin€than€questioning€the€divine€right€andÏwill€of€the€king.€€Later€the€majority€of€themÏregarded€all€dealings€with€the€exiled€house€ofÏStuart€as€calling€for€the€most€severe€methods€ofÏrepression,€and€many€of€a€later€generationÏbelieved€that€the€libels€of€Wilkes€and€hisÏassociates€upon€the€ministry€were€so€dangerousÏto€good€order€that€they€should€be€suppressed€byÏany€means.€€Likewise€there€was€little€generalÏsympathy€with€the€earlier€violations€of€theÏimposts€laws€in€the€colonies.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€On€these€occasions€the€government€proceededÏwith€a€heavy€hand,€and€indiscriminate€searchesÏand€seizures€were€made€in€the€hunt€for€evidenceÏupon€which€to€try€offenders.€€There€is€littleÏdoubt€but€that€at€the€beginning€of€each€of€theseÏcrises€predominant€moral€sentiment€supportedÏthe€crown.€€But€violent€methods€outraged€andÏantagonized€the€people,€and€either€madeÏimpossible€or€postponed€the€end€sought€to€beÏreached.€€Much€turmoil€arose,€much€blood€flowed,Ïbut€little€progress€was€made€in€lawÏenforcement.€€The€observance€of€no€law€has€beenÏpromoted€by€tyranny,€nor€do€we€suppose€everÏwill€be,€in€an€English€speaking€community.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€These€lessons€from€the€past,€as€well€as€theÏConstitution€which€rules€us€all,€admonish€thatÏthis€court€should€set€itself€unfalteringly€againstÏany€disturbance€of€the€security€of€the€people€inÏ"their€persons,€houses,€papers€and€possessions"Ïby€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.Ô€+ÔÌÌòòÔ€Ôò òCraven€v.€Stateó óÔ€+Ôóó,€148€Ô€ÔTennÔ€+Ô.€517,€519„20,€256€S.W.€431€(1923).Ì Ä Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔIn€òòò òStanley€v.€Georgiaó óóó,€394€U.S.€557,€89€S.Ct.€1243,€22€L.Ed.2dÏ542€(1969),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€while€the€StateÏof€Georgia€could€criminalize€the€public€dissemination€of€obsceneÏmaterial,€it€could€not€criminalize€the€private€possession€of€obsceneÏmaterial.€€The€court€stated€that€€the€justifications€for€€statutesÏregulating€obscenity€"do€not€.€.€.€€reach€into€the€privacy€of€one's€ownÏhome."€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€1248;€òòò òSee€also,€Bowers€v.€Hardwick,€óóó ó106€S.Ct.€atÏ2853€(Blackmun,€J.,€dissenting)€("Indeed,€the€right€of€an€individual€toÏconduct€intimate€relationships€in€the€intimacy€of€his€or€her€own€homeÏseems€to€me€to€be€the€heart€of€the€Constitution's€protection€ofÏprivacy.")€Ô€Ô€€Ìà àIn€òòò òState€v.€Grahamó óóó,€35€Tenn.€133€(1855)€our€Supreme€CourtÏconsidered€the€propriety€of€a€conviction€for€uttering€profanity€inÏpublic.€€The€Court€held€that€the€public€nature€of€the€offense€made€it€anÏindictable€offense.€€The€Court€did€not€specifically€address€swearing€inÏthe€context€of€the€privacy€of€the€home,€but€it€did€draw€a€distinctionÏbetween€acts€which€are€committed€in€private€and€those€which€areÏcommitted€in€public€and€thereby€become€harmful€and€criminallyÏpunishable.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌà8 àà8 àSobriety€in€public,€as€laid€down€by€Blackstone€inÏhis€Commentary,€is€a€duty€every€man€owes€to€theÏcommunity,€and€the€violation€of€which€isÏindictable.€€Not€so€as€to€private€acts€ofÏdrunkenness„„€that€is€only€hurtful€to€himselfÏand€not€his€neighbors.Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€principle€pervading€all€our€laws,€inÏrelation€to€the€description€of€offences€underÏconsideration,€is,€that,€with€the€private€viewsÏof€citizens,€the€community,€as€such,€will€notÏconcern€itself,€but€leave€them€to€the€lash€ofÏconscience€and€the€frowns€of€neighbors;€butÏwhen€their€vicious€acts€are€public,€they€will€beÏdealt€with€as€òòcrimes,€óóbecause€of€their€tendencyÏto€disturb€and€annoy€others,€and€exert€a€banefulÏinfluence€upon€the€morals€and€habits€of€theÏcommunity.€€ÌÌòòò òIdó óóó.€at€138„39€(emphasis€in€original).Ô€+ÔÌ ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔWe€express€no€opinion€as€to€the€constitutionality€of€theÏcriminalization€of€the€conduct€at€issue€in€this€case€when€that€conductÏis€engaged€in€publicly€or€€commercially,€nonconsensually,€or€by€minors,Ïas€those€questions€are€not€before€us€and€implicate€State€interests€notÏpresented€by€the€instant€case.Ô€+ÔÌ °Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔThe€appellants€make€no€argument€as€to€whether€these€interestsÏconstitute€"compelling€interests"€which€justify€the€infringement€of€aÏfundamental€right.€€The€appellants€simply€offered€these€interests€asÏjustifications€for€the€statute€in€their€answers€to€plaintiffs'Ïinterrogatories.€€€€€Ô€+ÔÌ dÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€Justice€Blackmun€reached€a€similar€conclusion€in€his€dissent€inÏòòò òBowersó óóó€in€which€he€stated:ÌÌà àNor€can€€.€.€.€[Georgia's€sodomy€statute]€be€justified€as€a[n]€.€.€.Ïexercise€of€Georgia's€power€to€"protect€the€public€environment,"€òòò òParisÏAdult€Theatre€Ió óóó,€413€U.S.,€at€68„69,€93€S.Ct.,€at€2641.€€Certainly,Ïsome€private€behavior€can€affect€the€fabric€of€society€.€.€.€€but€we€haveÏample€evidence€for€believing€that€people€will€not€abandon€morality,Ïwill€not€think€any€better€of€murder,€cruelty€and€dishonesty,€merelyÏbecause€some€private€sexual€practice€which€they€abominate€is€notÏpunished€by€the€law."€ÌÌ€òòò òBowersó óóó,€106€S.Ct.€at€2855€(Blackmun,€J.,€dissenting)€(citationsÏomitted).Ô€+Ô€Ì KÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ÔWe€also€note€that€T.C.A.€ðð€68„10„107€(1992)€serves€to€preventÏthe€spread€of€infectious€diseases€by€criminalizing€the€transmission€ofÏa€sexually€transmitted€disease.€€€ÌÔ€+ÔÓÓ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€Ô€In€the€Defendants'€Responses€to€Plaintiffs'€First€Set€ofÏInterrogatories,€the€defendants€assert€as€a€justification€for€theÏHomosexual€Practices€Act,€the€following:ÌÌà àGovernment€often€takes€steps€to€protect€its€citizens€fromÏparticipating€in€activities€that€will€injure€them€or€their€families€andÏloved€ones.€€Many€current€Tennessee€statutes€are€designed€to€do€justÏthis.€€For€example,€the€blue€laws,€pornography€laws,€gambling€laws€andÏprostitutionÔ€+Ô€Ô€Ôlaws€are€all€designed€to€penalize€certain€activities€solelyÏbecause€the€citizens€of€this€State€have€€a€moral€conviction€thatÏengaging€in€these€activities€will€be€injurious€in€some€manner€and€willÏproduce€one€or€more€undesirable€social€conditions.€€The€statutoryÏgrounds€set€out€for€obtaining€a€divorce€in€Tennessee€also€demonstrateÏmoral€choices€that€the€citizens€of€this€State€have€translated€intoÏlegislation.€€The€Homosexual€Acts€statute€is€just€one€example€in€a€longÏlitany€of€statutes€the€purpose€of€which€is€to€reinforce€certain€moralÏvalues€and€to€minimize€harmful€social€conditions.Ô€+ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€+ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÑ#€,,Xd#ÑÑ#€,,Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÙ€ÙÑ  ÑÑ  ÑßL€/2.;+'h|C- `€€Lßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àÏ_______________________________________________ÌÌPENNY€CAMPBELL,€ET€AL,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDavidson€CircuitÏNo.€93C„1547ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€01A01„9507„CV„00321ÌÌò òDON€SUNDQUIST,€ó óGovernor€ofÌthe€State€of€Tennessee,€et€al,€ò òÌÌà àó óDefendants„Appellants.Ì_________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSONÏCOUNTYÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€WALTER€C.€KURTZ,€JUDGEÌÌà@ àCharles€W.€Burson,€Attorney€General€andÏReporterÌà0 àà àà@ àJerry€L.€Smith,€Deputy€Attorney€GeneralÌà@ àFor€Defendants„AppellantsÌÌà@ àAbby€R.€Rubenfeld€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppelleesÌÌà@ àRebecca€L.€Brown,€Robert€K.€Rasmussen,€Susan€L.€Kay€of€NashvilleÌà@ àFor€Amicus€Curiae,€American€Civil€Liberties€Union€of€TennesseeÌÌà@ àJames€L.€McHugh,€Jr.,€Carolyn€I.€Polowy€and€Paul€M.€SmithÌà@ àof€Washington,€D.C.;€Irwin€Venick€of€Nashville,€For€Amicus€Curiae,Ìà@ àAmerican€Psychological€Association,€The€National€Association€of€Ìà@ àSocial€Workers,€and€The€Tennessee€Chapter€of€the€NationalÌà@ àAssociation€of€Social€WorkersÌÌà@ àGlen€G.€Dukes,€Jr.,€of€NashvilleÌà@ àSuzanne€Goldberg,€Staff€Attorney,€LAMBDA€Legal€Defense€Ìà@ à&€Education€of€New€YorkÌà@ àFor€LAMBDA€Legal€Defense€and€Education€andÌà@ àThe€Tennesseans€for€EqualityÌÌà@ àPeggy€June€Griffin€of€Dayton,€Amicus€Curiae,€Pro€SeÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌòòCONCURS:óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌòòDISSENTS€IN€PART,€CONCURS€IN€PART:óóÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEó óà@ àÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€a€constitutional€challenge€under€theÏTennessee€Constitution€€to€Tennessee's€Homosexual€Practices€Act,€ÍT.C.A.€ðð€39„13„510€(1991).€€On€May€26,€1993,€plaintiffs€PennyÏCampbell,€John€Doe,€Jane€Doe,€James€Tallent,€and€Christopher€Simien,× ƒ3 ××  ×Ïfiled€a€"Verified€Petition€for€Declaratory€and€Injunctive€Relief"€in€theÏCircuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€Tennessee,€against€defendants€DonÏSundquist,€Governor€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,× ƒ4 ××  ×€Charles€W.€Burson,ÏAttorney€General€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,€and€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,ÏDistrict€Attorney€General€for€Davidson€County,€each€in€his€officialÏcapacity.€€The€complaint,€as€amended,€seeks€a€declaratory€judgmentÍpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€29„14„101,€òòet€seqóó.,€(1980)€that€the€HomosexualÏPractices€Act€(HPA),€a€criminal€law,€violates€plaintiffs'€right€toÏprivacy€under€Article€I,€Sections€1,€2,€3,€7,€8,€19,€and€27€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€and€their€right€to€equal€protection€of€the€lawsÏunder€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€PlaintiffsÏalso€seek€to€enjoin€the€enforcement€of€the€HPA.€€Ìà àEach€of€the€plaintiffs€admitted€that€they€have€violated€the€HPA€inÏthe€past,€and€that€they€intend€to€continue€violating€the€HPA€in€theÏfuture.€€Plaintiffs€allege€that€they€are€each€harmed€by€the€HPA€becauseÏit€criminalizes€their€private,€intimate€conduct,€and€that€each€of€themÏbelieve€they€are€threatened€with€prosecution€for€violations€of€theÏstatute,€which€could€result€in€plaintiffs€losing€their€jobs,€professionalÏlicenses,€and/or€housing€should€they€be€convicted.Ìà àDefendants€answer€filed€September€24,€1993,€denies€that€the€HPAÏviolates€any€provision€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ìà à€On€July€16,€1993,€the€defendants€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€on€theÏgrounds,€òòò òinter€aliaó óóó,€that€the€plaintiffs'€petition€sought€an€advisoryÏopinion€which€the€court€was€not€authorized€to€render,€that€none€of€theÍplaintiffs€had€been€prosecuted€under€the€Act€and€therefore€theirÏallegations€were€speculative€and€hypothetical,€that€the€plaintiffsÏlacked€standing,€and€that€the€issue€presented€was€not€ripe€orÏjusticiable.€€On€October€4,€1993,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendants'Ïmotion€to€dismiss,€finding€that€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€T.C.A.€€ððÏ29„14„101,€òòet€seq.óó,€could€properly€be€used€to€challenge€theÏconstitutionality€of€statutes€imposing€criminal€sanctions€onÏindividuals,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€had€standing€to€bring€this€action.€OnÏOctober€4,€1994,€the€defendants€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€theÏgrounds,€ò òòòinter€aliaó ó,€óóthat€this€case€presented€only€a€question€of€law,Ïthat€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€had€elapsed,€that€this€actionÏcould€not€properly€be€maintained€under€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,Ïand€that€the€Tennessee€Constitution€was€not€violated€by€the€HPA.€€OnÏDecember€7,€1994,€the€trial€court€€entered€an€order€denying€theÏdefendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Ìà àOn€December€7,€1994,€the€plaintiffs€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment,€supported€by€affidavits€of€ten€expert€witnesses€as€well€asÏdiscovery€materials€previously€filed€with€the€court.€€On€February€2,Í1995,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€summary€judgment€toÏthe€plaintiffs.€€In€its€order€the€trial€court€found€that€private€sexualÏactivity€between€consenting€adults€of€the€same€sex€is€protected€by€theÏstate€constitutional€right€to€privacy,€that€the€State€had€failed€to€showÏa€compelling€state€interest€sufficient€to€prohibit€private€sexualÏactivity€between€consenting€adults€of€the€same€sex,€and€that€the€HPA€Ô€ÔisÏoverbroad€in€that€it€prohibits€behavior€which€is€constitutionallyÏprotected.€€The€court€pretermitted€the€equal€protection€issue€andÏdeclined€to€enjoin€the€enforcement€of€the€HPA.Ìà àThe€appellants€timely€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€February€24,Ï1995,€and€present€four€issues€for€our€review.€€As€stated€in€theÏappellants'€brief€those€issues€are:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€thatÏthe€plaintiffs€could€bring€this€action€againstÏstate€officials€under€the€Tennessee€DeclaratoryÏJudgment€Act?ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€thatÏthere€was€sufficient€state€action€to€allow€theÏplaintiffs€to€maintain€their€claims€whenÏplaintiffs€admitted€none€of€them€is€or€ever€hasÏbeen€directly€threatened€with€or€subjected€toÍprosecution€€under€T.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô39„13„510?ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holdingÏthat€the€plaintiffs€filed€this€case€within€theÏapplicable€statute€of€limitations€when€theÏrecord€shows€Ô€Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô39„13„510€became€effective€onÏNovember€1,€1989,€and€no€state€action€otherÏthan€passage€of€the€act€is€alleged,€and€thisÏaction€was€filed€on€May€26,€1993.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holdingÏthat€the€right€to€privacy€first€announced€inÏòòò òDavis€v.€Davisó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.€1992);Ïencompasses€the€right€to€engage€in€homosexualÏsodomy€and€that€the€state€must€demonstrate€aÏcompelling€state€interest€to€prohibit€suchÏactivity?ÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellees€also€present€two€additional€issues€for€our€review.€ÏAs€stated€in€the€appellees'€brief,€those€issues€are:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhether€the€"Homosexual€Acts"€StatuteÏwhich€criminalizes€certain€private€sexual€actsÏbetween€consenting€adults€while€leaving€theÏvery€same€acts€legal€when€engaged€in€byÏdifferent€adults,€creates€a€constitutionally„impermissible€classification€that€violates€theÏright€to€equal€protection€of€the€laws€guaranteedÏby€the€Tennessee€Constitution?ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWhether€an€injunction€should€be€issuedÏagainst€enforcement€of€T.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€39„13„510Ïbecause€it€is€an€unconstitutional€criminalÍstatute€that€imposes€an€unwarranted€restrictionÏon€the€fundamental€right€to€privacy€as€protectedÏby€the€Tennessee€Constitution?Ô€ÔÌÌÓÓà àThis€case€is€before€us€pursuant€to€the€trial€court's€grant€ofÏsummary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs.€€Ô€Ô€A€trial€court€should€grant€aÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€only€if€the€movant€demonstrates€thatÏthere€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€partyÏis€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€56.03;€ò òòòByrd€v.ÏHallóóó ó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€òòò òDunn€v.€Hackettó óóó,€833€S.W.2dÏ78,€80€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€materialÏfact€exists.€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210.€€When€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€is€made,€the€court€must€consider€the€motion€in€the€sameÏmanner€as€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€made€at€the€close€of€theÏplaintiff's€proof;€that€is,€"the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€allÏreasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence."€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€210„11.€€In€òòò òByrdó óóó,€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€thereÏis€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact,€theÏnonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÏaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€isÏa€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€aÏtrial.€[citations€omitted].€€In€this€regard,€RuleÏ56.05€provides€that€the€nonmoving€party€cannotÏsimply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÏforth€òòò òspecific€factsó óóó€showing€that€there€is€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.ÌÌÓÓ€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€211.€(emphasis€in€original).€€Ô€ÔDisputed€facts€"must€bear€directlyÏand€materially€upon€the€legal€elements€of€the€claim€or€defense€beingÏtested€by€the€summary€judgment€motion."€€ò òòòPhan€v.€Sandersó óóó,€818ÏS.W.2d€18,€19€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(quoting€ò òòòMacon€County€LivestockÏMarket,€Inc.€v.€Kentucky€State€Bank,€Inc.ó óóó,€724€S.W.2d€343,€348Ï(Tenn.€App.€1986)).Ô€ÔÌ€Ô€Ôà àÓÓT.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€39„13„510€(1991)€provides:€Ìà àÌà8 àà8 àà àò òHomosexual€actsó ó„€It€is€a€Class€CÏmisdemeanor€for€any€person€to€engage€inÏconsensual€sexual€penetration,€as€defined€in€Ô€Ô€ððÏ39„13„501(7),€with€a€person€of€the€same€gender.ÌÌT.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô39„13„501(7)€(1991)€provides:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à"Sexual€penetration"€means€sexualÏintercourse,€cunnilingus,€fellatio,€analÍintercourse,€or€any€other€intrusion,€howeverÏslight,€of€any€part€of€a€person's€body€or€of€anyÏobject€into€the€genital€or€anal€openings€of€theÏvictim's,€the€defendant's,€or€any€other€person'sÏbody,€but€emission€of€semen€is€not€required.€.€.€.€Ô€ÔÌÌÌò òI.€€Standing€to€Maintain€This€Action€Under€the€DeclaratoryÏJudgment€€ActÌÓÓó óà àÔ€ÔÌà àWe€will€first€address€the€appellants'€arguments€€regarding€theÏplaintiffs'€standing€to€bring€this€action€under€the€Declaratory€JudgmentÏAct.€€In€doing€so€we€consider€plaintiffs'€first€two€issues€together.€€TheÏappellants€argue€that€the€plaintiffs€do€not€have€standing€to€maintainÏthis€action,€because€none€of€the€plaintiffs€have€been€prosecuted€underÏthe€HPA;€therefore,€none€of€them€have€suffered€an€injury€as€a€result€ofÏthe€statute.€€The€appellants€further€argue€that€of€the€twenty„fiveÏarrests€reported€for€violations€of€T.C.A.€Ô€Ô€ðð€39„13„510,€twelve€resultedÏfrom€public€activity,€and€one€resulted€from€activity€involving€aÏjuvenile.€€The€appellants€contend€that€while€the€disposition€of€theÏremaining€twelve€arrests€is€unknown,€the€appellees€have€failed€to€showÏthat€there€have€been€any€arrests€for€purely€private,€consensual,€adult,Ísexual€activity;€therefore,€the€appellees€are€asking€this€Court€to€renderÏan€advisory€opinion€regarding€a€hypothetical€future€occurrence.€Ô€Ô€Ìà àThe€appellees,€on€the€other€hand,€adamantly€assert€that€they€haveÏstanding€based€on€the€fact€that€they€face€possible€criminal€penaltiesÏfor€engaging€in€constitutionally€protected€conduct.€€The€appellees€argueÏthat€because€they€are€homosexuals,€the€statute€imposes€an€actualÏthreat€of€prosecution€upon€them,€and€this€threat€is€an€injury€which€isÏ"not€common€to€the€body€of€citizenry."€€Therefore,€they€have€standingÏunder€Tennessee's€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€to€maintain€this€suit.€€€Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€plaintiffs€have€standing€to€bringÏthis€action.€€The€court€relied€on€òòò òErwin€Billiard€Parlor€v.€Buckneó óóór,Ï156€Tenn.€278,€300€S.W.€565€(1927),€and€€found€that€each€of€theÏplaintiffs€has€a€distinct€interest€in€the€HPA,€not€shared€by€the€generalÏpublic,€such€that€they€are€entitled€to€maintain€an€action€to€determineÏthe€constitutionality€of€the€HPA€under€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act.€ÏWe€agree.Ìà àIn€òòò òMorristown€Emergency€&€Rescue€Squad,€Inc.,€v.ÏVolunteer€Dev.€Co.ó óóó,€òòò òInc.,ó óóó€793€S.W.2d€262€(Tenn.App.€1990),€this€CourtÍstated,€"the€essential€element€of€standing€is€an€allegation€that€theÏordinance€will€inflict€some€injury€on€the€complainant€not€common€toÏthe€body€of€citizenry."€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€263€(citing€òòò òPatten€v.€Mayor€ofÏChattanoogaó óóó,€108€Tenn.€197,€65€S.W.€414€(1901));€òòò òaccordó óóó,€òòò òParks€v.ÏAlexanderó óóó,€608€S.W.2d€881,€891€(Tenn.App.€1980)(To€have€standingÏplaintiffs€must€allege€"special€interest€or€injury€peculiar€toÏthemselves€as€opposed€to€the€public€in€general.").€€In€òòò òÔ€ÔErwin€BilliardÏParlor€v.€Buckneó óóór,€156€Tenn.€278,€300€S.W.€565€(1927)Ô€Ô,€the€plaintiffÏbrought€a€declaratory€judgment€action€seeking€to€€challenge€theÏconstitutionality€of€Chapter€104€of€the€Private€Acts€of€1925€whichÏcriminalized€the€operation€of€pool€and€billiard€halls€for€profit€inÏcounties€with€a€population€of€less€than€10,015€or€more€than€10,025Ïpeople.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€279„80.€€The€plaintiffs,€who€owned€a€billiard€hall× ƒ5 ××  ×€andÏhad€been€threatened€with€prosecution€by€the€sheriff,€brought€aÏdeclaratory€judgment€action€arguing€that€the€Act€violated€their€rightsÍunder€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€Court€allowed€the€maintenanceÏof€the€action,€even€though€the€plaintiffs€had€not€been€prosecuted€underÏthe€Act,€and€found€that€the€Act€violated€the€plaintiffs'€constitutionalÏrights€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€Court,€addressing€theÏplaintiffs'€standing€to€bring€the€action,€stated:€€€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€complainants€show€by€the€averments€ofÏtheir€bill€that€they€have€a€special€interest€in€theÏquestion€of€the€constitutionality€of€the€penalÏstatute€described€in€the€bill,€distinct€from€theÏinterest€of€the€public€generally,€in€that€theirÏinvestment€and€property€rights€will€be€directlyÏaffected€and€injured€by€its€enforcement.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€a€person€soÏsituated€is€entitled€to€bring€and€maintain€anÏaction€for€the€determination€of€the€properÏconstruction€or€constitutionality€of€such€aÏstatute,€under€the€provisions€of€the€DeclaratoryÏJudgments€Law.ÌÌòòò òErwinó óóó,€156€Tenn.€at€281„82.€ÌÌÓÓà àIn€ò òòòErwinó óóó,€unlike€the€case€at€bar,€plaintiffs€had€been€threatenedÏwith€prosecution€by€the€sheriff.€€However,€as€noted€above,€the€Court'sÏdecision€concerning€standing€was€premised€on€plaintiffs'€specialÏinterest.€€The€sheriff's€threat€of€prosecution€was€significant€only€as€toÍthe€sheriff€being€named€as€a€party€defendant.€€We€think€the€plaintiffs'Ïstatus€as€homosexuals€confers€upon€them€an€interest€distinct€from€thatÏof€the€general€public€with€respect€to€the€HPA,€and€that€they€areÏtherefore€entitled€to€maintain€an€action€under€the€DeclaratoryÏJudgment€Act€even€though€none€of€them€have€been€prosecuted€under€theÏHPA.€€This€conclusion€is€also€supported€by€Ô€Ôòòò òLeech€v.€AmericanÏBooksellers€Ass'nó óóó,€582€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€1979)Ô€Ô,€discussed€below.€€€€€€€€€Ïò òà àó óIn€addition€to€raising€issues€of€standingÔ€Ô,€the€appellants€alsoÏargue€that€this€constitutional€suit€cannot€be€brought€against€the€State,Ïbecause€there€is€no€enabling€statute€which€authorizes€the€suit.€€Ô€ÔTheÏappellants€first€argue€that€this€Court€does€not€have€jurisdiction€toÏentertain€this€action,€because€Article€I,€Section€17€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€€prohibits€a€suit€against€the€State€unless€such€suit€isÏbrought€in€strict€compliance€with€an€enabling€statute.€€Article€I,ÏSection€17€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides,€"Suits€may€beÏbrought€against€the€State€in€such€manner€and€in€such€courts€as€theÏlegislature€may€by€law€direct."€€The€appellants€argue€that€because€thereÏis€no€enabling€statute€which€authorizes€a€suit€against€the€State€onÍstate€constitutional€grounds,€Article€I,€Section€17€serves€to€bar€theÏplaintiffs€from€maintaining€this€action.€€The€appellants,€relying€onÏòòò òNorthern€Telecom,€Inc.€v.€Tayloró óóó,€781€S.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€1989),Ïfurther€argue€that€€the€Tennessee€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€29„14„101,€òòet€seqóó.,€cannot€constitute€an€enabling€statute€allowing€theÏplaintiffs€to€bring€this€suit,€because€the€State€is€not€specificallyÏmentioned€in€the€Act.€€€€€Ìà àWe€disagree.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€29„14„103€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òConstruction€of€statutes€and€writtenÏinstruments.„„ó ó€Any€person€interested€under€aÏdeed,€will,€written€contract,€or€other€writingsÏconstituting€a€contract,€or€òòò òwhose€rights,Ïstatus,€or€other€legal€relations€areÏaffected€by€a€statuteó óóó,€municipal€ordinance,Ïcontract,€or€franchise,€may€have€determined€anyÏquestion€of€construction€or€validity€arisingÏunder€the€instrument,€statute,€ordinance,Ïcontract,€or€franchise€and€obtain€a€declarationÏof€rights,€status€or€other€legal€relationsÏthereunder.€€(Emphasis€supplied).€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€"should€be€liberally€construed€inÏfavor€of€the€person€seeking€relief€in€a€proper€case€to€the€end€thatÏrights€and€interests€be€expeditiously€determined."€€òòò òTennesseeÍFarmers€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Hammondó óóó,€290€S.W.2d€860,€862€(Tenn.Ï1956).€€Although€the€Tennessee€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€is€to€beÏliberally€construed,€certain€limitations€have€been€placed€upon€theÏpower€of€courts€to€entertain€suits€brought€under€the€Act.€€T.C.A.€€ðð€20„13„102€(1992)€prohibits€courts€from€entertaining€suits€against€theÏstate€"or€against€any€officer€of€the€state€acting€by€authority€of€theÏstate,€with€a€view€to€reach€the€state,€its€treasury,€funds€or€property."€ÏIn€addition,€a€court€should€not€entertain€a€suit€under€the€DeclaratoryÏJudgment€Act€if€the€resolution€of€the€dispute€would€require€a€"judicialÏinvestigation€of€disputed€facts."€€òòò òStandard€Accident€Ins.€Co.€v.ÏCarvinó óóó,€400€S.W.2d€235,€236€(quoting€òòò òNewsum€v.€Interstate€RealtyÏCoó óóó.,€152€Tenn.€302,€305,€278€S.W.€56€(1925)).€€The€existence€of€aÏjusticiable€controversy€is€also€a€jurisdictional€prerequisite€to€theÏmaintenance€of€an€action€under€the€Act.€òòò òParks€v.€Alexanderó óóó,€608ÏS.W.2d€881,€891„92€(Tenn.App.€1980)(citing€òòò òJared€v.€Fitzgeraldó óóó,€183ÏTenn.€682,€689,€195€S.W.2d€1,€4€(1946)).€€In€view€of€the€remedialÏpurpose€of€€the€Tennessee€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€we€view€the€ActÏas€an€enabling€statute€to€allow€a€proper€plaintiff€to€maintain€a€suitÍagainst€the€State€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€a€state€statute.€ÏThe€appellants'€reliance€upon€òòò òNorthern€Telecom,€Inc.€v.€Tayloró óóó,€781ÏS.W.2d€837€(Tenn.€1989),€and€òòò òÔ€ÔCarter€v.€McWherteró óóó,€859€S.W.2d€343Ï(Tenn.App.€1993)Ô€Ô,€for€the€proposition€that€an€action€under€theÏDeclaratory€Judgment€Act€may€not€be€maintained€against€the€State,€isÏmisplaced.€€In€òòò òNorthern€Telecomó óóó€the€plaintiff€brought€a€declaratoryÏjudgment€action€against€the€State€Commissioner€of€Revenue€seeking€aÏrefund€of€taxes€which€the€plaintiff€had€paid€under€protest.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€838.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€plaintiff€could€not€maintain€the€actionÏagainst€the€State,€because€the€action€was€designed€"to€reach€the€state,Ïits€treasury,€funds,€or€property."€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€839„40.€€In€ruling€on€theÏDeclaratory€Judgment€issue€the€Supreme€Court,€quoting€òòò òHill€v.€Beeleó óóór,Ï199€Tenn.€325,€332„33,€286€S.W.2d€868,€871€(1956),€stated,€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Declaratory€Judgment€Act€[€Ô€+Ô€ðð€29„14„101],€Ô€ÔetÏseq.,€does€not€permit€the€filing€of€a€suit€againstÏthe€State€to€construe€statutes€so€it€seems€to€usÏthat€there€is€no€authority€for€the€suit€but€thatÏCode€Section€[20„13„102]€expressly€forbidsÏsuch€an€action.€€ÌÌòòò òNorthern€Telecomó óóó,€781€S.W.2d€at€840.€€ÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellants€rely€on€the€above€quoted€statement€in€òòò òNorthernÏTelecom€ó óóóin€forwarding€their€argument€that€the€instant€action€isÏbarred,€because€it€is€an€action€against€the€State€which€seeks€toÏconstrue€a€statute.€We€disagree,€because€this€argument€takes€òòò òNorthernÏTelecomó óóó€out€of€the€context€in€which€it€was€decided.€Ô€ÔThe€DeclaratoryÏJudgment€Act€expressly€provides€that€courts€are€empowered€to€declareÏrights€under,€and€construe,€statutes.€€Ô€Ôòòò òHilló óóó,€òòò òNorthern€Telecomó óóó,€andÏòòò òCarter€ó óóóare€inapplicable€to€the€declaratory€judgment€questionÏpresented€by€the€case€before€us.€€In€all€three€of€these€cases€in€whichÏthe€Courts€held€that€the€respective€plaintiffs'€actions€could€not€beÏmaintained€under€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€the€plaintiffs'€actionsÏwere€designed,€in€some€fashion€or€other,€to€reach€Ô€Ôthe€state€treasuryÔ€Ô,Ïstate€funds,€or€state€property,€and€thus€the€actions€were€clearly€barredÏby€Ô€ÔT.C.A.€ðð€20„13„102Ô€Ô.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€plaintiffs€do€not€seek€toÏreach€the€state€treasury,€funds,€or€property,€and€therefore,€this€case€isÏdistinguishable€from€the€line€of€cases€cited€by€the€appellants.Ô€ÔÌà àIn€any€event,€we€think€our€Supreme€Court€has€clearly€establishedÍthat€a€plaintiff€may€maintain€a€declaratory€judgment€action€challengingÏthe€constitutionality€of€a€state€statute.€€In€€òòò òLeech€v.€AmericanÏBooksellers€Associationó óóó,€582€S.W.2d€738€(Tenn.€1979),€theÏplaintiffs€€brought€€declaratory€judgment€actions€challenging€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€Tennessee€Obscenity€Act€of€1978.€€Our€SupremeÏCourt,€affirming€the€trial€courts,€held€that€the€Act€wasÏunconstitutional.€€Although€jurisdiction€to€entertain€the€cases€was€notÏraised,€it€is€implicit€from€the€Court's€ruling€that€the€Court€hasÏjurisdiction€to€consider€a€constitutional€challenge€to€a€state€statute.€ÏThus,€under€òòò òLeechó óóó,€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€may€properly€maintain€aÏdeclaratory€judgment€action€challenging€the€constitutionality€ofÏTennessee's€Homosexual€Practices€Act.ÌÓ  Óò òII.€The€Statute€of€Limitations€as€a€Bar€to€This€SuitÌÓ  ÓÔ€Ôà àó óWe€next€address€the€appellants'€assertion€that€this€cause€ofÏaction€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€appellants€assertÏthat€the€plaintiffs'€cause€of€action€is€barred€by€T.C.A.€Ô€Ôðð€Ô€Ô28„3„104(a),Ïthe€one€year€statute€of€limitations€for€personal€torts€and€malpracticeÏactions.€€The€appellants€argue€that€there€must€be€a€statute€ofÍlimitations€on€the€plaintiffs'€cause€of€action,€and€since€the€action€isÏclosely€analogous€to€the€actions€limited€by€Ô€Ô€ðð€Ô€Ô28„3„104(a),€theÏplaintiffs'€suit€is€barred€since€it€was€commenced€more€than€one€yearÏafter€the€cause€of€action€accrued.Ìà àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€this€argument€fails€not€only€becauseÏthe€defendants€have€failed€to€cite€a€single€case€in€support€of€thisÏargument,€but€also€because€there€is€no€statute€of€limitations€onÏchallenging€an€unconstitutional€penal€statute.€€We€agree.€€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€Ôò òIII.€€Right€to€Privacy€Under€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÌÔ€+ÔÌÓ  ÓÓÓó óà àTÔ€Ôhe€appellants€argue€that€even€if€this€Court€does€haveÏjurisdiction€to€hear€this€case,€the€cause€of€action€must€fail,€becauseÏthe€right€to€privacy€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€does€notÏencompass€the€right€to€engage€in€homosexual€conduct.€€In€their€briefÏand€argument,€the€appellants€rely€heavily€on€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€case€of€òòò òBowers€v.€Hardwickó óóó,€Ô€Ô478€U.S.€186,€106€S.Ct.€2841,€92ÏL.Ed.2d€140€(1986).€€In€òòò òBowersó óóó,€respondent€Michael€Hardwick€wasÍcharged€with€violating€Georgia's€sodomy€statute× ƒ6 ××  ×€for€committing€thatÏact€with€another€male€in€Hardwick's€bedroom.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€2842.€€HardwickÏwas€not€prosecuted€for€violating€the€statute,€but€he€felt€that€theÏstatute€placed€him€in€"imminent€danger€of€arrest."€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€HardwickÏbrought€suit€in€federal€district€court€to€challenge€the€constitutionalityÏof€the€statute€asserting€that€the€statute€violated€his€fundamental€rightÏto€privacy€under€the€United€States€Constitution.€€à àThe€district€courtÏgranted€the€defendant's€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claimÏupon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€ò òId.ó ó€€The€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÏEleventh€Circuit€reversed,€holding€that€the€Georgia€statute€violatedÏHardwick's€fundamental€rights,€because€his€sexual€activity€constitutedÏprivate€and€intimate€association€that€is€beyond€the€reach€of€stateÏregulation€Ô€Ôunder€the€Ninth€Amendment€and€the€Due€Process€Clause€ofÍthe€Fourteenth€Amendment.€€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€2843.€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€granted€òòcertioÔ€ÔrariÔ€Ôóó€anÔ€Ôd€reversed€the€Eleventh€Circuit,€holding€thatÏGeorgia's€sodomy€law€did€not€violate€Hardwick's€federal€constitutionalÏrights.€€The€Court€held€that€the€right€to€engage€in€homosexual€conductÏwould€not€be€afforded€heightened€judicial€protection,€because€€it€doesÏnot€fall€into€the€category€of€a€right€which€is€"implicit€in€the€concept€ofÏordered€liberty,"€òòò òIdó óóó.€(quoting€òòò òPalko€v.€Connecticutó óóó,€302€U.S.€319,Ï325,€€326,€58€S.Ct.€149,€151,€152,€82€L.Ed.€288€(1937)),€or€"deeplyÏrooted€in€this€Nation's€history€and€tradition,"€106€S.Ct.€at€2844€(quotingÏòòò òMoore€v.€East€Clevelandó óóó,€431€U.S.€494,€503,€97€S.Ct.€1932,€1938,€52ÏL.Ed.2d€531€(1977)).€€The€court€reasoned€that€homosexuality€wasÏcriminalized€in€this€Nation€as€€early€as€the€adoption€of€the€Bill€ofÏRights,€thus€to€argue€that€the€right€to€engage€in€such€conduct€is€"deeplyÏrooted€in€this€Nation's€history"€or€"implicit€in€the€concept€of€orderedÏliberty"€is€"facetious."€€106€S.Ct€at€2846.€Ìà àThe€appellants€argue€that€the€parameters€of€protection€of€theÏright€to€privacy€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€are€identical€to€thoseÏof€the€Federal€Constitution,€and€since€the€federal€right€to€privacy€doesÍnot€encompass€the€right€to€engage€in€homosexual€conduct,€neither€doesÏthe€right€to€privacy€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€appellantsÏargue€that€the€"precise€source€of€the€state€right€to€privacy"€is€found€inÏArticle€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€that€TennesseeÏcourts€have€consistently€interpreted€the€protections€affordedÏTennessee€citizens€under€Article€I,€Section€8€to€be€"substantiallyÏidentical"€or€"synonymous"€with€the€Due€Process€Clauses€of€the€FifthÏand€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€TheÏappellants€assert€that€to€date,€our€Supreme€Court€has€interpreted€theÏright€to€privacy€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€€to€guaranteeÔ€9ÔÍÔ€ÔTennessee€citizens€only€the€same€rights€as€the€federal€right€to€privacyÏ(that€is,€rights€in€the€areas€of€heterosexual€marriage,€procreation,€andÏchild€rearing).Ô€Ô€€Therefore,€the€right€to€privacy€in€Tennessee€shouldÏcontinue€to€protect€only€those€areas€of€conduct€which€are€protected€byÏthe€federal€right€to€privacy.€€The€appellants€contend€that€since€òòò òBowersÏó óóóestablished€that€the€federal€right€to€privacy€only€protects€€thoseÏmatters€which€are€"deeply€rooted€in€this€Nation's€history€and€tradition"Ïor€"implicit€in€the€concept€of€ordered€liberty,"€the€Tennessee€right€toÏprivacy€similarly€only€protects€those€same€matters.€€The€appellants,Ïtracking€the€language€of€the€òòò òBowers€ó óóóCourt,€further€argue€that€it€isÏ"facetious"€to€"claim€that€the€right€to€engage€in€homosexual€sodomy"€isÏeither€implicit€in€this€State's€concept€of€ordered€liberty€or€deeplyÏrooted€in€this€State's€history€and€tradition.Ô€+ÔÌà àÔ€ÔThe€appellees,€on€the€other€hand,€argue€that€since€òòò òBowers€ó óóóisÏanalytically€unsound,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€thatÏ"there€is€no€reason€to€assume€that€there€is€a€complete€congruency"Ïbetween€the€federal€and€Tennessee€rights€to€privacy,€òòò òDavis€v.€Davisó óóó,Ï842€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.€1992),€€the€Tennessee€right€to€privacy€doesÍencompass€the€right€of€the€plaintiffs€to€engage€in€private,€consensual,Ïnon„commercial,€sexual€conduct.€€The€appellees€also€argue€thatÏÔ€ÔTennessee€constitutional€jurisprudenceÔ€Ô€and€Tennesseans'€historicalÏhostility€to€excessive€governmental€interference€in€their€personalÏlives,€clearly€provide€a€basis€for€concluding€that€the€Tennessee€right€toÏprivacy€confers€greater€rights€upon€its€citizens€than€does€theÏcorresponding€federal€right€to€privacy.€€€Ô€9ÔÌÔ€+Ôà àÔ€ÔWe€note€at€the€outset€that€in€determining€the€parameters€of€theÏright€to€privacy€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€neither€Ô€Ôthis€CourtÏÔ€Ônor€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€is€bound€by€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt's€decision€in€òòò òBowers€v.€Hardwickó óóó.€It€is€€settled€constitutionalÏlaw€that€where€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€federal€constitutionÏcontain€similar€or€identical€provisions,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏmay€"impose€higher€standards€and€stronger€protection€than€those€set€byÏthe€federal€constitution."€òòò òMiller€v.€Stateó óóó,€584€S.W.2d€758,€760€(Tenn.Ï1979Ô€Ô)Ô€Ô;€òòò òLeech€v.€American€Booksellers€Ass'n,€Incó óóó.,€582€S.W.2d€738,Ï745€(Tenn.€1979).€€Ô€ÔIn€òòò òMilleró óóó,€our€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[A]s€to€Tennessee's€Constitution,€we€sit€as€aÍcourt€of€last€resort,€subject€solely€to€theÏqualification€that€we€may€not€impinge€upon€theÏminimum€level€of€protection€established€byÏ[United€States]€Supreme€Court€interpretations€ofÏthe€federal€constitutional€guarantees.€€But€stateÏsupreme€courts,€interpreting€stateÏconstitutional€provisions,€may€impose€higherÏstandards€and€stronger€protections€than€thoseÏset€by€the€federal€constitution.€€It€is€settled€lawÏthat€the€Supreme€Court€of€€a€state€has€full€andÏfinal€power€to€determine€the€constitutionalityÏof€a€state€statute,€procedure,€or€course€ofÏconduct€with€regard€to€the€state€constitution,Ïand€this€is€true€even€where€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions€contain€similar€or€identicalÏprovisions.ÌÌÓÓòòò òMilleró óóó,€584€S.W.2d€at€760€(citations€omitted).€ÌÔ€Ôà àThe€right€to€privacy€in€Tennessee€was€first€expressly€recognizedÏin€Tennessee€in€1992€in€òòò òDavis€v.€Davisó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€588€(Tenn.€1992).× ƒ: ××  ×€ÏIn€òòò òDavisó óóó€our€Supreme€Court€was€presented€with€the€question€ofÏwhether€Junior€Davis€€had€a€right€to€prevent€his€ex„wife,€Mary€SueÍDavis,€from€donating€"frozen€embryos"€to€a€childless€couple.€€TheÏ"frozen€embryos"€were€created€from€the€sperm€of€Mr.€Davis€and€the€ovaÏof€Mrs.€Davis€and€were€originally€intended€to€be€implanted€into€theÏuterus€of€Mrs.€Davis€who€was€incapable€of€conceiving€childrenÏotherwise.€€At€some€point€the€marital€relations€of€the€parties€wentÏawry,€and€following€the€parties€divorce,€they€could€not€agree€on€theÏdisposition€€of€the€frozen€embryos.€€Mr.€Davis€argued€that€to€allow€Mrs.ÏDavis€to€donate€the€embryos€would€in€effect€force€him€to€become€aÏfather€against€his€will.€€Our€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€afforded€Mr.€Davis€a€right€to€privacy€which€included€theÏright€not€to€procreate.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€601.€€The€court€stated,ÌÓÓÔ€Ô€à8 àà8 àThe€right€to€privacy,€or€personal€autonomy€("theÏright€to€be€let€alone"),€while€not€mentionedÏexplicitly€in€our€state€constitution,€isÏnevertheless€reflected€in€several€sections€of€theÏTennessee€Declaration€of€Rights,€includingÏprovisions€in€Section€3€guaranteeing€freedom€ofÏworship€("no€human€authority€can,€in€any€caseÏwhatever,€control€or€interfere€with€the€rights€ofÏconscience");€those€in€Section€7€prohibitingÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizures€("the€peopleÏshall€€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,Ïand€possessions,€from€unreasonable€searchesÍand€seizures");€those€in€Section€19€guaranteeingÏfreedom€of€speech€and€press€("freeÏcommunication€of€thoughts€and€opinions,€is€oneÏof€the€invaluable€rights€of€man,€and€everyÏcitizen€may€freely€speak,€write,€and€print€on€anyÏsubject,€being€responsible€for€the€abuse€of€thatÏliberty");€and€the€provisions€in€Section€27Ïregulating€the€quartering€of€soldiers€("no€soldierÏshall,€in€time€of€peace,€be€quartered€in€any€houseÏwithout€the€consent€of€the€owner").ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€Obviously,€the€drafters€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€of€1796€could€not€have€anticipatedÏthe€need€to€construe€the€liberty€clauses€of€thatÏdocument€in€terms€of€the€choices€flowing€fromÏò òòòin€vitroó óóó€fertilization€procedures.€€But€there€canÏbe€little€doubt€that€they€foresaw€the€need€toÏprotect€individuals€from€unwarrantedÏgovernmental€intrusion€into€matters€such€as€theÏone€now€before€us,€involving€intimate€questionsÏof€personal€and€family€concern.€€Based€on€bothÏthe€language€and€the€development€of€our€stateÏconstitution,€we€have€no€hesitation€in€drawingÏthe€conclusion€that€there€is€a€right€of€individualÏprivacy€guaranteed€under€and€protected€by€theÏliberty€clauses€of€the€Tennessee€Declaration€ofÏRights.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€Undoubtedly,€that€right€to€privacyÏincorporates€some€of€the€attributes€of€theÏfederal€constitutional€right€to€privacy€and,€inÏany€given€fact€situation,€may€also€share€some€ofÏits€contours.€€As€with€other€state€constitutionalÏrights€having€counterparts€in€the€federal€bill€ofÍrights,€however,€there€is€no€reason€to€assumeÏthat€there€is€a€complete€congruency.€€ò òòòCompareÏand€contrast,€e.g.,€State€v.€Jacumin,€ó óóó778ÏS.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989),€with€ò òòòIllinois€v.ÏGatesó óóó,€462€U.S.€213,€103€S.Ct.€2317,€76€L.Ed.2dÏ527€(1983).Ô€ÔÌÌòòò òDavisó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€600.ÌÌÓÓà àÔ€ÔAs€stated€above,€the€appellants€argue€that€the€"precise€source"€ofÏthe€right€to€privacy€is€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€and€that€since€Tennessee€courts€have€interpreted€ArticleÏI,€Section€8€"synonymously"€with€the€Federal€Due€Process€Clauses,€theÏright€to€privacy€in€Tennessee€does€not€encompass€the€right€to€engage€inÏhomosexual€conduct.€€We€disagree.€€Ô€ÔOur€Supreme€Court€has€notÔ€Ô€statedÏthat€Article€I,€Section€8€is€the€precise€source€of€the€right€to€privacy,€itÏhasÔ€Ô€stated€that€the€right€to€privacy€is€€"ground[ed]"€in€the€"concept€ofÏliberty"€in€our€Constitution.€€òòò òDavisó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€598;€òòò òHawk€v.€Hawkó óóó,Ï855€S.W.2d€573,€579€(Tenn.€1993).€€Article€I,€Section€8's€€"liberty"Ïprovision€is€certainly€part€of€that€"concept€of€liberty,"€and€it€protectsÏand€guarantees€the€right€to€privacy,€but€it€is€not€the€sole€and€preciseÏsource€of€the€right€to€privacy.€€The€òòò òDavisó óóó€Court€clearly€stated€that€theÍtextual€sources€of€the€right€to€privacy€include€Ô€ÔSections€3,€7,€19,€and€27Ïof€the€Declaration€of€Rights€contained€in€Article€I.€€842€S.W.2d€at€600.€ÏÔ€ÔThus,€the€construction€which€the€Supreme€Court€has€placed€on€Article€I,ÏSection€8€does€not€restrict€the€right€to€privacy,€because€the€right€toÏprivacy€does€not€stem€solely€from€Article€I,€Section€8.€€Moreover,€theÏcases€which€the€appellants€have€cited€for€the€proposition€that€ArticleÏI,€Section€8€is€"synonymous"€with€the€Due€Process€Clauses€of€theÏFederal€Constitution€overstates€the€holdings€of€these€cases.€€€TheseÏcases€stated€that€the€"law€of€the€land"€provision€of€Article€I,€Section€8Ïis€"synonymous"€with€the€Federal€Due€Process€Clauses;€the€Courts€didÏnot€purport€to€discuss€the€"liberty"€component€of€the€Section€in€theÏcontext€of€the€right€to€privacy.€€òòò òSeeó óóó€Ô€Ôòòò òRailroad€v.€Crideró óóó,€91€Tenn€489,Ï501„02,€19€S.W.€618€(1892)€(stating€"law€of€the€land"€clause€isÏ"substantially€identical"€to€Federal€Due€Process€Clauses);€òòò òState€v.ÏHaleó óóó,€840€S.W.2d€307,€312€(Tenn.€1992)("law€of€the€land"€clause€andÏ"due€process€of€law"€clause€used€in€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€"are€synonymous€phrases€meaning€one€and€the€sameÏthing");€òòò òDearborne€v.€Stateó óóó,€575€S.W.2d€259,€262€(Tenn.€1978)(same);Íòòò òDaugherty€v.€Stateó óóó,€216€Tenn.€666,€674,€393€S.W.2d€739,€743Ï(1965)(same).Ô€Ô€€In€any€event,€òòò òDavis€v.€Davisó óóó€clearly€established€thatÏ"there€is€no€reason€to€assume€that€there€is€a€complete€congruency"Ïbetween€the€Tennessee€and€the€federal€right€to€privacy.€€842€S.W.€2d€atÏ600.€€Ìà àBoth€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€this€State's€constitutionalÏjurisprudence€establish€that€the€right€to€privacy€provided€toÏTennesseans€under€our€Constitution€is€in€fact€more€extensive€than€theÏcorresponding€right€to€privacy€provided€by€the€Federal€Constitution.€€WeÏagree€with€the€plaintiffs€that€the€Tennessee€Constitution€andÏespecially€the€Declaration€of€Rights€in€Article€I,€indicate€a€strongÏhistoric€commitment€by€the€citizens€of€this€State€to€individual€libertyÏand€€freedom€from€governmental€interference€in€their€personal€lives.€ÏOur€Supreme€Court€noted€this€commitment€in€òòò òDavisó óóó.€€The€Court,Ïcommenting€on€Sections€1€and€2€of€the€Declaration€of€Rights,× ƒ; ××  ×€stated,ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIndeed,€the€notion€of€individual€liberty€is€soÏdeeply€imbedded€in€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏthat€it,€alone€among€American€constitutions,Ïgives€the€people,€in€the€face€of€governmentalÏoppression€and€interference€with€liberty,€theÏright€to€resist€that€oppression€even€to€theÏextent€of€overthrowing€the€government.ÌÌÓÓ842€S.W.2d€at€599.€€Ô€Ô€Ô€Ô€€€€€Ô€ÔÌà àÔ€ÔThe€Homosexual€Practices€Act€prohibits€sexual€contact€betweenÏindividuals€of€the€same€gender€regardless€of€the€location€of€theÏcontact.€€That€is,€as€written,€the€statute€is€sufficiently€broad€toÏprohibit€private€sexual€activity€which€takes€place€behind€closed€doorsÏin€an€individual's€home.€€€The€sanctity€of€the€home€has€long€beenÍrecognized€by€both€federal€law€and€Tennessee€law,× ƒ< ××  ×€and€both€bodies€ofÍlaw€have€drawn€distinctions€between€actions€which€are€committed€inÏthe€privacy€of€the€home€and€those€committed€in€public.× ƒ= ××  ×€€Ô€ÔWe€think€it€isÍconsistent€with€this€State's€Constitution€and€constitutionalÏjurisprudence€to€hold€that€an€adult's€right€to€engage€in€consensual€andÏnoncommercial€sexual€activities€in€the€privacy€of€that€adult's€home€is€aÏmatter€of€intimate€personal€concern€which€is€at€the€heart€ofÍTennessee's€protection€of€the€right€to€privacy,€and€that€this€rightÏshould€not€be€diminished€or€afforded€less€constitutional€protectionÏwhen€the€adults€engaging€in€that€private€activity€are€of€the€sameÏgender.× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÔ€+Ôà àÔ€ÔSince€we€have€determined€that€the€Homosexual€Practices€ActÏconstitutes€a€governmental€intrusion€into€the€plaintiffs'€right€toÏprivacy,€we€must€next€address€the€question€of€whether€this€intrusion€isÏunwarranted€and€therefore,€unconstitutional.€€Since€the€right€to€privacyÏis€protected€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€it€is€therefore€aÏfundamental€right.€€òòò òState€v.€Testeró óóó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.Ï1994).€€Legislation€which€regulates€the€exercise€of€a€fundamental€rightÏwill€be€reviewed€under€a€strict€scrutiny€analysis.€€Ô€Ôòòò òHawk€v.€Hawkó óóó,€855ÏS.W.2d€573,€579,€579€nn.€8,€9€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ô€ÔTo€withstand€strictÏscrutiny,€the€legislation€must€be€justified€by€a€"compelling€stateÍinterest"€and€must€be€narrowly€drawn€to€advance€that€interest.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€€€Ìà àThe€appellants€offer€essentially€five€state€interests€that€areÏallegedly€advanced€by€the€Homosexual€Practices€Act.× ƒ? ××  ×€€First,€the€ActÏdiscourages€activities€which€cannot€lead€to€procreation.€€Second,€theÏAct€discourages€citizens€from€choosing€a€lifestyle€which€is€€sociallyÏstigmatized€and€leads€to€higher€rates€of€suicide,€depression,€and€drugÏand€alcohol€abuse.€€Third,€the€Act€discourages€homosexual€relationshipsÏwhich€are€"short€lived,"€shallow,€and€initiated€for€the€purpose€of€sexualÏgratification.€€Fourth,€the€Act€prevents€the€spread€of€infectiousÏdisease,€and€fifth,€the€Act€promotes€the€€moral€values€of€Tennesseans.Ìà àNone€of€the€foregoing€asserted€State€interests€are€sufficient€toÏsave€the€Homosexual€Practices€Act€under€strict€scrutiny€analysis,Ïbecause€either€the€asserted€interest€is€not€a€compelling€one,€or€the€ActÏis€not€narrowly€drawn€to€advance€that€interest.€€The€first€assertedÍinterest,€that€the€statute€discourages€activity€which€cannot€lead€toÏprocreation,€is€neither€a€compelling€nor€even€a€constitutionally€valid€Ïjustification€for€the€Act.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court's€decisionÏin€òòò òGriswold€v.€Connecticutó óóó,€381€U.S.€479,€85€S.Ct.€1678,€35€L.Ed.2dÏ510€(1965),€establishes€that€the€State€cannot€outlaw€certain€intimateÏsexual€activities€of€its€citizens€simply€because€those€activities€do€notÏor€cannot€lead€to€procreation.€€Moreover,€in€òòò òDavis€v.€Davisó óóó,€€ourÏSupreme€Court€unequivocally€stated€that€the€right€to€privacy€includesÏthe€right€to€procreational€autonomy€which€provides€citizens€of€thisÏstate€"the€right€to€procreate€and€the€right€to€avoid€procreation."€€842ÏS.W.2d€at€601.Ìà àThe€second€justification€for€the€statute,€that€it€discourages€aÏsocially€stigmatized€lifestyle€which€leads€to€higher€rates€of€suicide,Ïdepression,€and€substance€abuse,€also€fails€to€save€the€statute€underÏstrict€scrutiny€analysis.€€We€think€there€is€little€doubt€that€the€State'sÏattempt€to€rescue€homosexuals€from€a€socially€unpopular€lifestyle€doesÏnot€provide€a€compelling€reason€or€even€a€valid€reason€for€infringementÏof€the€fundamental€right€of€adults€to€engage€in€private,€noncommercial,Íconsensual€sex.€€òòò òSee€Palmore€v.€Sidotió óóó,€104€S.Ct.€1879,€1882€(1984)Ï(Denying€an€individual€a€protected€right€simply€because€exercise€of€thatÏright€will€result€in€€subjecting€individual€to€private€prejudice€and€bias,Ïoperates€to€give€the€effect€of€the€law€to€the€prejudice€and€bias€and€isÏimpermissible);€òòò òO'€Connor€v.€Donaldsonó óóó,€422€U.S.€563,€575,€95€S.Ct.Ï2486,€2494,€45€L.Ed.2d€396€(1975)("Mere€public€intolerance€orÏanimosity€cannot€justify€the€deprivation€of€a€person's€physicalÏliberty.").€€€While€we€agree€that€the€State€has€a€compelling€interest€inÏpreventing€substance€abuse€and€€suicide€among€its€citizens,€there€isÏinsufficient€evidence€in€the€record€before€us€to€demonstrate€that€theÏHomosexual€Practices€Act€advances€this€interest.€€Moreover,€even€if€weÏassume€that€the€State€can€punish€a€"lifestyle,"€the€record€before€usÏindicates€that€there€is€no€one€"homosexual€lifestyle"€in€which€all€orÏeven€a€majority€of€homosexuals€engage;€thus,€with€respect€to€thisÏjustification,€the€statute€is€overly€broad€by€infringing€upon€the€privacyÏrights€of€homosexuals€who€do€not€engage€in€a€lifestyle€encompassingÏalcoholism,€drug€abuse,€and€suicide.€Ìà àThe€State's€third€justification€for€the€statute€is€that€it€preventsÍhomosexuals€from€entering€into€short€lived,€shallow,€and€promiscuousÏrelationships€which€weaken€the€"fabric"€of€the€€community€at€large.€ÏThe€appellants€argue€that€homosexual€relationships€are€instable€andÏthat€this€instability€has€consequences€for€others€in€society.€€We€thinkÏthis€justification€also€fails€to€rescue€the€Homosexual€Practices€ActÏunder€strict€scrutiny€analysis,€because€there€is€insufficient€evidence€inÏthe€record€to€prove€that€homosexual€relationships€are€short€lived€andÏshallow€and€thereby€weaken€the€"fabric"€of€the€community.× ƒ@ ××  ×Ìà àThe€State's€fourth€asserted€justification€for€the€statute€is€that€itÏprevents€the€spread€of€infectious€disease.€€We€agree€that€the€StateÍcertainly€has€a€compelling€interest€in€preventing€the€spread€ofÏinfectious€disease€among€its€citizens,€however,€the€HomosexualÏPractices€Act€is€not€narrowly€tailored€to€advance€this€interest.€€TheÏstatute€prohibits€all€sexual€contact€between€people€of€the€same€genderÏeven€if€the€people€involved€are€disease€free,€practicing€"safe€sex,"€orÏengaging€in€sexual€contact€which€does€not€contribute€to€the€spread€ofÏdisease.× ƒA ××  ×€€Moreover,€the€appellees€and€€the€American€Public€HealthÏAssociation,€as€òòÔ€Ôamicus€curiaeóóÔ€+Ô,€Ô€Ôforward€a€compelling€argument€that€theÏstatute€is€actually€counterproductive€to€public€health€goals.€€TheÏappellees€introduced€evidence€that€due€to€fear€of€prosecution,€someÏhomosexual€individuals€infected€with€sexually€transmitted€diseases€doÏnot€seek€medical€treatment€for€the€infection€or€report€the€infection,Ïand€that€others€are€reluctant€to€be€tested€to€determine€if€they€areÏinfected.€€Ìà àThe€final€asserted€justification€for€the€Homosexual€Practices€ActÍis€that€the€Act€advances€the€morals€of€Tennessee€citizens.€€TheÏappellants€assert€that€by€criminalizing€homosexual€acts,€the€citizensÏof€this€State,€through€their€elected€representatives,€have€indicatedÏthat€they€"find€the€practice€of€homosexuality€offensive€and€violative€ofÏtheir€own€moral€standards,€whether€those€standards€are€founded€inÏreligious€conviction€or€are€derived€from€a€system€of€secular€moralÏphilosophy."€€The€appellants€argue€that€it€is€axiomatic€that€our€State'sÏlaws€may€constitutionally€reflect€the€moral€values€and€standards€of€itsÏcitizens€and€may€€prohibit€conduct€which€is€violative€of€those€moralÏvalues€and€standards.× ƒB ××  ×€€€In€support€of€this€proposition,€the€appellantsÍcite€to€the€majority€opinion€in€òòò òBowersó óóó,€in€which€the€Court€stated,Ï"[t]he€law€.€.€.€€is€constantly€based€on€notions€of€morality,€and€if€allÏlaws€representing€essentially€moral€choices€are€to€be€invalidated€Ïunder€the€Due€Process€Clause,€the€courts€will€be€very€busy€indeed."Ïòòò òBowersó óóó,€478€U.S.€at€196,€106€S.Ct.€at€2846.€€Ìà àThe€appellees,€on€the€other€hand,€argue€that€the€moral€values€ofÏTennessee€citizens€are€unsubstantiated€by€the€record€in€this€case,€andÏin€any€event,€majoritarian€morality€is€not€a€valid€basis€for€€curtailingÏthe€actions€of€an€unpopular€minority€in€the€absence€of€any€evidence€thatÏthe€actions€of€the€minority€harm€other€members€of€society.€€In€supportÏof€this€proposition€the€appellees€cite€to€òòò òWisconsin€v.€Yoderó óóó,€406€U.S.Ï205,€92€S.Ct.€1526,€32€L.Ed.2d€15€(1972),€in€which€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€stated,€"A€way€of€life€that€is€odd€or€even€erratic,€butÏinterferes€with€no€rights€or€interests€of€others,€is€not€to€be€condemnedÏbecause€it€is€different."€òòò òYoderó óóó,€406€U.S.€at€223„24,€92€S.Ct€at€1537.€ÍThe€appellees€also€quote€the€majority€opinion€in€€òòò òRoe€v.€Wade,ó óóó€410ÏU.S.€113,€93€S.Ct.€705,€35€L.Ed.2d€147€(1973),€in€which€the€Court€statedÏthat€the€Constitution€"is€made€for€people€of€fundamentally€differingÏviews,€and€the€accident€of€our€finding€certain€opinions€natural€andÏfamiliar,€or€novel,€and€even€shocking€ought€not€to€conclude€ourÏjudgment€upon€the€question€of€whether€statutes€embodying€themÏconflict€with€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States."€€òòò òRoeó óóó,€410€U.S.€atÏ113,€93€S.Ct.€at€709€(quoting€òòò òLochner€v.€New€Yorkó óóó,€198€U.S.€45,€76,Ï25€S.Ct.€539,€547,€49€L.Ed.€937€(1905)€(Holmes,€J.,€dissenting)).à àÌà àIn€reviewing€these€arguments€we€note€that€the€propriety€of€theÏinfusion€of€majoritarian€morality€into€our€laws€has€been€debated€sinceÏthe€inception€of€this€Nation,€and€this€debate€has€resulted€in€judicialÏconclusions€that€are€as€vastly€different€as€the€contexts€in€which€theseÏdebates€have€arisen.€€In€this€case,€both€the€appellants€and€the€appelleesÏpresent€compelling€arguments€regarding€the€extent€to€which€our€lawsÏmay€reflect€majoritarian€morality.€€We€recognize€that€many€of€the€lawsÏof€this€State€reflect€"moral€choices"€regarding€the€standard€of€conductÏby€which€the€citizens€of€this€State€must€conduct€themselves.€€However,Íwe€also€recognize€that€when€these€"moral€choices"€are€transformedÏinto€law,€they€have€constitutional€limits.€€In€this€case,€since€the€law€inÏquestion€infringes€upon€the€plaintiffs'€right€to€privacy,€a€fundamentalÏright,€the€law€must€be€justified€by€a€compelling€state€interest€andÏmust€be€narrowly€drawn€to€advance€that€interest.€€Even€if€we€assumeÏthat€the€Homosexual€Practices€Act€represents€a€moral€choice€of€theÏpeople€of€this€State,€we€are€unconvinced€that€the€advancement€of€thisÏmoral€choice€is€so€compelling€as€to€justify€the€regulation€of€€private,Ïnoncommercial,€sexual€choices€between€consenting€adults€simplyÏbecause€those€adults€happen€to€be€of€the€same€gender.Ìà àOur€neighboring€state,€Kentucky,€among€other€states,€has€reachedÏa€similar€conclusion.€€In€òòò òCommonwealth€v.€Wassonó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€487Ï(Ky.€1992),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Kentucky€considered€the€propriety€ofÏupholding€a€statute€similar€to€T.C.A.€ðð€39„13„510,€on€the€basis€ofÏadvancing€the€morals€of€Kentuckians.€€The€court€concluded€that€the€willÏof€the€majority€could€not€be€imposed€upon€the€minority€absent€someÏshowing€of€harmful€consequences€created€by€the€actions€of€theÏminority.€€òòò òWassonó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€496„97.€€The€court€stated,€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€may€be€asked€whether€a€majority,€believingÏits€own€happiness€will€be€enhanced€by€another'sÏconformity,€may€not€enforce€its€moral€code€uponÏall.€€The€answer€is€that,€first,€morality€is€anÏindividual,€personal€„€one€might€say,€private€„Ïmatter€of€conscience,€and€dwells€inviolateÏwithin€the€fortress€of€Section€5:€€"No€humanÏauthority€shall€in€any€case€whatever,€control€orÏinterfere€with€rights€of€conscience."€€Second,Ïthe€Constitution€promotes€no€particularÏmorality,€however€popular.€€Indeed,€the€NewÏWorld€having€been€sought€out€by€those€fleeingÏstate€and/or€majoritarian€persecution,€ourÏsystems€of€government€are€predicated€upon€suchÏimperatives€as€that€recognized€in€KentuckyÏConstitution€Section€2:€€"Absolute€and€arbitraryÏpower€over€the€lives,€liberty€and€property€ofÏfreemen€exist€nowhere€in€a€republic,€not€even€inÏthe€largest€majority."€€Third,€morality€is€aÏmatter€of€values.€€Insofar€as€it€comprises€aÏmoral€code,€the€Constitution€embraces€„€yea,Ïembodies€„€immutable€values€of€individualÏfreedom,€liberty,€and€equality.ÌÌÓÓòòò òWassonó óóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€502„03€(Combs,€J.,€concurring).€€The€òòò òWassonÏó óóócourt€found€the€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court's€holding€inÏòòò òCommonwealth€v.€Bonadioó óóó,€415€A.2d€47€(Penn.€1980),€persuasive.€€InÏòòò òBonadioó óóó,€the€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court€also€considered€the€issue€ofÏupholding€its€sodomy€statute€on€the€basis€of€morals€and€the€state'sÍpolice€powers;€the€court€stated:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€threshold€question€in€determining€whetherÏthe€statute€in€question€is€a€valid€exercise€of€theÏpolice€power€is€to€decide€whether€it€benefitsÏthe€public€generally.€€The€state€clearly€has€aÏproper€role€to€perform€in€protecting€the€publicÏfrom€inadvertent€offensive€displays€of€sexualÏbehavior,€in€preventing€people€from€being€forcedÏagainst€their€will€to€submit€to€sexual€contact,Ïin€protecting€minors€from€being€sexually€used€byÏadults,€and€in€eliminating€cruelty€to€animals.€€ToÏassure€these€protections,€a€broad€range€ofÏcriminal€statutes€constitute€valid€police€powerÏexercises,€including€proscriptions€of€indecentÏexposure,€open€lewdness,€rape,€involuntaryÏdeviate€sexual€intercourse,€indecent€assault,Ïstatutory€rape,€corruption€of€minors,€and€crueltyÏto€animals.€€The€statute€in€question€serves€noneÏof€the€foregoing€purposes€and€it€is€nugatory€toÏsuggest€that€it€promotes€a€state€interest€in€theÏinstitution€of€marriage.€€The€Voluntary€DeviateÏSexual€Intercourse€Statute€has€only€one€possibleÏpurpose:€€to€regulate€the€private€conduct€ofÏconsenting€adults.€.€.€.ÌÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWith€respect€to€regulation€of€morals,€theÏpolice€power€should€properly€be€exercised€toÏprotect€each€individual's€right€to€be€free€fromÏinterference€in€defining€and€pursuing€his€ownÏmorality€but€not€to€enforce€a€majority€moralityÏon€persons€whose€conduct€does€not€harm€others.€Ï"No€harm€to€the€secular€interests€of€theÍcommunity€is€involved€in€atypical€sex€practiceÏin€private€between€consenting€adult€partners."€ÏMODEL€PENAL€CODE€ðð€207.5€„€Sodomy€&€RelatedÏOffenses.€€Comment€(Tent.€Draft€No.€4,€1955).€ÏMany€issues€that€are€considered€to€be€matters€ofÏmorals€are€subject€to€debate,€and€no€sufficientÏstate€interest€justifies€legislation€of€normsÏsimply€because€a€particular€belief€is€followedÏby€a€number€of€people,€or€even€a€majority.€ÏIndeed,€what€is€considered€to€be€"moral"€changesÏwith€the€times€and€is€dependent€upon€societalÏbackground.€€Spiritual€leadership,€not€theÏgovernment,€has€the€responsibility€for€strivingÏto€improve€the€morality€of€individuals.€ÏEnactment€of€the€€Voluntary€Deviate€SexualÏIntercourse€Statute,€despite€the€fact€that€itÏprovides€punishment€for€what€many€believe€to€beÏabhorrent€crimes€against€nature€and€perceivedÏsins€against€God,€is€not€properly€in€the€realm€ofÏthe€temporal€police€power.ÌÌòòò òBonadioó óóó,€415€A.2d€at€49„50.ÌÌÓÓà àThis€Court€has€previously€observed:€€"à8 àà8 àThis€Court€does€not€sit€asÏmoral€arbiters€making€judgments€on€what€is€acceptable€socialÏbehavior."€€ò òòòIn€re€€Parsonsó óóó,€C.A.€No.€02A01„9403„JV„00037,€1995€WLÏ442587,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€W.S.€July€27,€1995).€€The€Court€mustÏscrupulously€avoid€imposing€the€moral€beliefs€of€its€members€onÏanyone.€€The€Court's€opinion€should€not€in€any€way€be€deemed€to€condoneÍor€condemn€any€particular€lifestyle€or€the€moral€behavior€associatedÏtherewith.€€The€Court's€role€is€to€see€that€the€liberty€of€our€citizens€isÏfully€protected€to€the€extent€authorized€by€our€Constitution€and€laws.Ìà àPursuant€to€this€state's€constitution€and€constitutionalÏjurisprudence,€we€conclude€that€our€citizens'€fundamental€right€toÏprivacy€("the€right€to€be€let€alone")€encompasses€the€right€of€theÏplaintiffs€to€engage€in€consensual,€private,€non„commercial,€sexualÏconduct,€because€that€activity€"involv[es]€intimate€questions€ofÏpersonal€and€family€concern."€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€HomosexualÏPractices€Act,€T.C.A.€€ðð€39„13„510,€which€criminalizes€such€conduct,€isÏunconstitutional.€Ìà àFinally,€we€reach€the€appellees€argument€that€because€the€HPA€isÏunconstitutional,€an€injunction€should€be€issued€against€itsÏenforcement.€€It€is€clear€that€this€Court€may€not€enjoin€pending€orÏthreatened€prosecutions€for€the€violation€of€the€criminal€laws€of€thisÏState.€€ò òòòErwin€Billiard€Parlor€v.€Buckneró óóó,€156€Tenn.€278,€300€S.W.Ï565€(1927);€ò òòòLindsey€v.€Draneó óóó,€154€Tenn.€458,€285€S.W.€705€(1926);Ïò òòòBrackner€v.€Estesó óóó,€698€S.W.2d€637€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€This€argumentÍis€without€merit.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€ofÏappeal€are€assessed€against€appellants.ÓÓÔ€ÔÌÌÔ€Ôà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.Ìó óÔ€ÔÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌÔ€Ô________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌó óÔ€ÔÌÌò òBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,ÌPARTIAL€DISSENT€IN€SEPARATEÌOPINIONó ó