Griswold Vs Connecticut Case Study

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.

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

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

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court held that same sex couples can now exercise the fundamental right of marriage nationwide. Justice Kennedy reached this result by redefining what marriage is.

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

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

Griswold v. Connecticut was argued on March 28-29, 1965 and the decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 7, 1965. It was questioned whether or not the Constitution protected the rights of marital privacy (limits government intrusion into private family matters) against restrictions for a couple to receive counseling on using contraceptives. Mrs. Griswold had given counseling to a married couple that had wanted to use birth control and it was against Connecticut law to do so. The Supreme Court’s ruling was that married couples have the right to privacy and the law was declared unconstitutional as it violated the right of privacy. Married couples have the right to private privacy.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold, and her claim that the state contraceptive law was unconstitutional.

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

The Supreme Court Justices agreed on the major premise that, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Liberty as defined by the court is taken or supposed to be true because it consists of the First Amendment rights of “freedom of thought, belief, expression”,but the court also included “ certain intimate conduct” as a liberty. The court is correct that “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty. Because of the courts major premise the court came to the minor premise that, “It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” However, “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty for one to do when it is legal according to the Laws of

Lawrence v Texas was the inspiration of changing the gay rights, and if wasn’t for this case gay rights wouldn’t be where it is today . In the case Lawrence v. Texas, which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual consent was invalidated in Texas. John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for having an illegal type of sex. However this law was only enforced in the state of Texas. Lawrence and Garner's appeal was that what they had been doing was protected the Fourteenth Amendment, which, “prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.” The court's final decision was 6-3 in favor of Lawrence.

Society was impacted in a great effect, this was one of the first victories for people of the (then) small group of LGBT, a group that was still not quite as influential as it is today. I believe the court’s ruling was not trying to stir the LGBT movement forward in any sort of specific way, but instead were trying to push for equality in justice, and having specific groups of people (Gay, lesbian, black, hispanic and so forth) is at the end of the day, an injustice to the people of the United States. There was severe involvement by civil liberties groups, as many saw that this court case would set a precedence in many state laws and some groups were concerned with the aftermath of the case. Kelly Shackleford, a Texas attorney, was affiliated with a Fundamentalist Christian group “Focus on the Family” and he argued for the group that Lawrence V. Texas would be used as a trump card for homosexual equality, an “atomic bomb that they could carry around to attack any law that does not treat homosexuality on an equal basis with heterosexuality." He would also argue that marriage laws could become unconstitutional and that all marriage laws were in potential danger from a Lawrence win. These concerns were put aside and had little weight in the case, other claims that the case would make polygamy and bestiality legal in the bedroom were criticized for being outlandish and inherently insulting to the court. Professor Laurence Tribe wrote that Lawrence v. Texas “may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian Americans.” What this case did do was make the roadway to equality for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. The landmark case of Obergefell V. Hodges that made same-sex marriage a fundamental right was a possibility because

Estelle Griswold is the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut; C. Lee Buxton is a licensed physician and current professor at Yale Medical School. He served as the Medical Director at the League’s location in New Haven during the time of the incident. Griswold and Buxton counseled a married couple on various ways to prevent conception. They performed an examination on the wife and prescribed the best method of contraception for her. Griswold and Buxton usually charged fees for their services, though some couples received free assistance. The League officials were arrested in November 1961 for violating Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives.

In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy and childbirth related deaths. Now, it has become one of the safest medical procedures in the U.S.- with a safety record of over 99%. The U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) struck down a law that prohibited birth control. The Supreme Court held that the law violated the right to marital privacy. This case is important to feminism because it emphasizes privacy, control over one’s personal life, and freedom from government intrusion in relationships. Griswold v. Connecticut helped pave the way for Roe v. Wade. The case of Roe v. Wade began in 1970 when Norma McCorvey took federal action against the district attorney of Dallas, Texas, Henry Wade to ask: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

During the 1970s, a gay rights movement, patterned in many ways after the civil rights and women’s rights movements, developed momentum as the sexual revolution spurred new social and sexual mores, which in turn prompted legislatures to repeal many state laws regulating sexuality. For instance, some 20 states, including California and Ohio, struck from the books their anti-sodomy laws. Still, by the mid-1980s, laws that prohibited certain acts between people of the same sex, and in some cases between those of the opposite sex, remained in force in 25 states. ("The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate") Although the legal battle over same-sex marriage is rooted, in part, in the question of whether state and federal constitutions protect a right to privacy, the word “privacy” never actually appears in the U.S. Constitution. (Shmoop Editorial Team, "The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause") However, the Constitution does recognize several rights relating to privacy. For example, the Fourth Amendment recognizes the importance of privacy interests when it stipulates that because citizens