Essay LGBT Equal Rights: It's Time to Legalize Sodomy

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 founding fathers of the United States of America fought hard to achieve an independent nation. An independent nation containing freedoms and rights for citizens that only the constitution can guarantee. One of the crucial rights guaranteed to U.S citizens today is the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone according to Brandeis and Warren. The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is however mentioned in the bill of rights. The bill of rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution, which protects many civil rights and liberties of all U.S citizens. The debate today is whether the constitution protects the privacy of citizens from being regulated and invaded by federalism.

A Rutgers professor summarized the problems deriving from the right to privacy when he wrote, "If human rights - such as the right to be let alone - are to enjoy the force of law, it seems desirable for the right to be spelled out carefully." The right to privacy is entirely a judicial interpretation and creation, meaning that it has little permanence or substance. Only a constitutional amendment can insure that one's privacy is an undisputed, inalienable right.

While there is no “right to privacy” explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court believes that several of the Amendments embody this right; specifically the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments [6]. The First Amendment protects the privacy of one’s beliefs [6]. The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against it being forcibly used to house soldiers [6]. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches [6]. The Fifth Amendment protects the privacy of personal information [6]. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to liberty in the areas of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing [6]. And lastly the Ninth Amendment is a “catch-all,” declaring that just because a

Hardwick relied on Stanley v. Georgia to affirm that the result should be different where homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home. Since Stanley v. Georgia had support from the first amendment Hardwick thought he had another claim. However, as seen by Justice White, illegal conduct is not always immunized when it happens inside the home. For example, possession and use of illegal drugs, do not escape the law when committed at home. Since Justice White was unpersuaded that the sodomy laws of the states should be invalidated based on the claims and he did not agree, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Since Bowers v. Hardwick upheld a sodomy statute seventeen years prior Lawrence v. Texas, there occurred a large amount of societal change, and seven years prior to Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans changed that even more with a landmark anti discrimination ruling.The outdated status of the ruling of bowers, which is the current standing on the issue. Romer ruled that laws cannot single out groups and say that they cannot receive legal protection from discrimination. Anti sodomy statute is discrimination, Romer established that people have the right to not be discriminated

As a result the case arrived to United States Supreme Court and the petition was filed on 16 July 2002. A huge number of organizations have filed briefs on the side of petitioners as well as respondents. A lot of public attention was attracted to the case. Petitioners were represented by Paul Smith, an openly gay lawyer. The arguments were heard on the 26th March, 2003 and the decision was declared three months later on the 26th June. These arguments did put some questions into people’s mind. The first question presented was, “whether the complainant's conviction for having sexual intercourse, which is the criminal action under the Texas law, was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of the equal protection by law.” As it was already mentioned above, the homosexual conduct law made the sexual activity between the same sex individuals a crime, while the same behaviour of the different sex couples was completely legal. The second question was, “whether the petitioner's activity in their home violated the rights for liberty and privacy which are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” And finally, the third question presented was, “whether the Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled.” All of these questions were discussed and answered throughout the

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

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

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

Scalia says that we are in a "culture war" between the homosexual activists and those who wish to criminalize homosexual behavior. The government says laws like Bowers discriminate against homosexuals and should not be in effect, therefore, according to Scalia, they are taking sides in this "culture war." The court tells Americans that it is wrong to discriminate, but most states uphold laws that "mandate" and uphold such behavior (discharging persons in the military who engage in homosexual activity and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.) Scalia says that "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as schoolmasters for their children's schools, or as boarders in their home." He thinks that the majority of Americans are against homosexuality and the court does not realize it. I agree with Scalia when he points out that there are laws that invite discrimination against homosexuals, but I feel that the government is taking a step in the right direction by overturning Lawrence v. Texas. Our laws may not be consistent yet, but I believe, in time,

The anti-sodomy law was then banished and said to be unconstitutional. The case does not involve minors, no people were injured or forced. It did not involve public conduct or display. The court put out the statement that homosexuals have a right to take part in private sexual activity in the privacy of their own home. The court also recognizes that they have sexual and ethical rights and have the right to legal protection. Chief Justice Burger's reviewed the Bowers v. Hardwick case "Condemnation of homosexual practices is that are rooted in Christianity ethical and morals

Imagine you can’t have sexual intimacy with your partner. Or, not in the way you’d prefer. Before 2003, Texas had sodomy laws. These laws, in Texas, prevented specifically same-sex couples from engaging in sexual intercourse. In 2003, based on a call about a weapons disturbance, police officers entered John Lawrence’s apartment, where they found him and Tyron Garner engaged in sexual intercourse. This went against the Sodomy Laws. They were brought to court, and eventually the case was brought to Supreme Court; where Paul M. Smith argued that this law, this denial of privacy in a way, was unconstitutional. It went against both the eighth and the fourteenth amendment. In the case of Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court made the right decision

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).