Bowers V. Hardwick Case Summary

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

Texas case served as the tip of the iceberg into advancing the gay rights movement in Texas and nationwide. Without the case as well as the specific decision made by the Supreme Court, Texas would still be majorly intolerant, discriminant, and unrepresented by the LGBT community and supporters. Lawrence and Garner were two men who fought for their love, their privacy, and their rights, and they came out successfully in the end in turn affecting all of society and many events that have taken place since 2003. Considering if sodomy laws were still implemented in Texas, an injustice and unconstitutional hindrance would be in place fostering the traditional culture and conservative views that are voiced as the majority in Texas. In the past few years, Texas Democrats have voiced their support of same-sex marriage, the next step in the gay rights movement. In 2012 their support and advocacy in favor of same-sex marriage began and it would not have been possible without the existence of the Lawrence v. Texas case and its six to three ruling declaring the sodomy laws in Texas unconstitutional. The LGBT community wants what all Americans expect: life, liberty, and property. The pursuit of happiness is the added bonus as to what they strive for, and it was made possible by the ruling of the Lawrence v. Texas case in

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House of Representative’s committee, attempted to uphold the bill’s constitutionality. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decision, but the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decision and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Then, Obergefell vs Hodges officially stated that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in 2015 (“Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell also shared the same opinion, as Justice White read the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Burger's view was that there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy in constitutional terms. Although Chief Justice Burger had a concurring opinion with the Court, he went back in history to support the laws against sodomy. Justice Burger talked about the condemnation of homosexual practices is firmly rooted in Judeas-Christian moral and ethical standards, and that homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. Justice Powell also joined the opinion of the Court.

The central contention of the case is of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The court argued that it was “within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment” to provide sexual sterilization to those who were found to be “with an heredity form of insanity or imbecility.” Upon close examination of the 14th Amendment, one can see the ambiguity it contains. The Amendment can be read as really saying that the “state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” as long as “due process of law” is followed, and granted “the equal protection of the laws.” And this seems to be the way the Supreme Court read it. Since due process was

Historically, the same sex marriage movement can be traced back to the early 1970’s, when gay rights activists begun the movement by bringing forward three suits in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington, but none of the suits were successful (Rosenberg). Following these actions in 1986, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick was brought before the Supreme Court

The case chosen for this research paper is the case of Lawrence V. Texas. In Houston, Texas police officers were dispatched to a private home, responding to a report of weapon disturbance. Inside the home they found John Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The two men were arrested and held overnight and charged with violating Texas law, specifically Texas law made the act of two people of the same sex engaging in certain intimate sexual conduct illegal. The two men were then convicted before a Justice of Peace. Lawrence V. Texas asks the question of whether the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner under the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was argued

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Lawrence and Garner approached the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in November of the following year, by June of 2000 the three-judge panel decided in their favor, the Texas statute was considered unconstitutional. Justice John S. Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy had decided that the statute violated the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution, which bans discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. It was a 2-1 ruling, Justice Harvey Hudson dissented. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, and on March of the following year, the ruling was reversed and the law’s constitutionality was upheld with a 7-2 decision. The equal protection and substantive due process arguments were denied. After that loss,

Hardwick, decided in 1986. It was overturned in 2003, which upheld 5-4 decisions, it was for the activity of oral and anal sex in private between adults, and it was applied to homosexuals. Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. This was same-sex sexual activity legal, in 13 states and in other parts of the United States. It was 5 justice majorities, which also overturned the same case of Bowers v. Hardwick and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. DeShaney v. Winnebago Country Department of Social Services, was decided 1989 by the Supreme Court. Which basically held that it has a failure to prevent child abuse by a parent does not violate the child’s right, the liberty of following the 14th amendment. Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967, and invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Two couples were sentenced to jail for a year, because they had married each other, a white man and black women. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation, which prohibited people from marrying each other, especially if they were from a different race. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, which determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional. Therefore, it was an ending all race legal marriage in the United

The Court further noted the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and determined that same-sex marriage bans violates the latter. Concluding that the liberty and equality of same-sex couples was significantly burdened, the Court struck down same-sex marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states. Due to the "substantial and continuing harm" and the "instability and uncertainty" caused by state marriage laws varying with regard to same-sex couples, and because respondent states had conceded that a ruling requiring them to marry same-sex couples would undermine their refusal to hold valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, the Court also held that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other

The Court argued that its decision in Bowers, which ruled that the Due Process Clause does not confer a "fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy," was misguided. At issue here was not "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but "the right to privacy in the home" and "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex." In the words of Justice Kennedy, "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." That personal bond between adults, as acted upon in the home, is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause against the