In this chapter I will examine two truly momentous decisions about the status of homosexuality in our society, arrived at by the American Psychiatric Association 15 years ago and by the Supreme Court of the United States just two and one half years ago. The former decision relates to the diagnostic status of homosexuality; the latter to its criminal status. By juxtaposing these two epochal decisions, psychiatric and legal, I will attempt to demonstrate that within both systems value judgments and value-laden policy decisions played a major role and were decisive in reaching a resolution of the disputes over homosexuality. The two decisions which I will discuss are the 1973 decision of the APA’s Board of Trustees to remove homosexuality per se from the diagnostic nomenclature (DSM-II1 at the time) and the 1986 decision of the Supreme Court in Bowers v Hardwick,2 which upheld the constitutionality of Georgia’s sodomy law, thereby refusing to grant constitutional protection to private consensual homosexual acts. In discussing each of these landmark decisions, psychiatric and legal, I will review the process of how these decisions were arrived at, as well as the related scientific and legal conceptions of “Truth.” I will attempt to demonstrate how, within each model of decision making, the “truth” arrived at was determined in large measure by the value judgments and moral sentiments of the decision makers, notwithstanding their ostensible reliance on more objective touchstones consistent with their respective professional methodologies. I will not attempt to deal with the substance of the controversies in any depth. I do not propose, for example, to argue the merits one way or the other as to whether homosexuality should have been removed from the DSM. Instead of rehashing those old arguments, I prefer to focus on the process of decision making that took place and the explanations advanced as the basis for the decisions.