Lawrence V. Texas Essay

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

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

"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

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

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,

In this case, Perry, the plaintiffs compiling of Kristen Perry and Sandra Stier, a same- sex couple, filed suit in federal court after being denied the right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They named the defendants Hollingsworth which consisted of California’s governor, attorney general, other state and local officials responsible for enforcing the California’s marriage laws. For the reason that Governor Schwarzenegger, and other officials not wanting to defend Proposition 8 that amended the California Constitution the federal District Court allowed ballet proponents to defend it. After it was deemed unconstitutional the original defendants decided not

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."

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was approved amid the Reconstruction period to ensure the privileges of minorities, is the law within the Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges case. In a Houston, Texas apartment five years back, nearby police were dispatched to answer reports of gunfire. They legally entered the apartment of petitioner John Lawrence, who was engaging in sex with another man. The two were arrested, convicted and fined $200. Texas statue making it illegal for two individuals of the same sex to partake in sexual relationships with one another violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court justified that Lawrence and Garner were allowed to exercise their liberty by engaging in private relations under the Due Process Clause.

It is against the Constitution of the U.S.A as well as any laws whether state, federal and international that seeks to protect everyone and ensure that rights are equally distributed. However, this has been ironic of Texas’s

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court successfully adopts the 14th amendment and applies both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to establish banning of same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

Immediately opponents who didn’t agree with the protections it offered to the gay and transgender residents of Houston fought back, a petition that would force a repeal referendum of the ordinance (Donchey, 2015). In April 2015 a judge siding with the city during the HERO trial, he stated that there were not enough valid signatures to repeal the ordinance. In July 24 the Texas Supreme Court suspended the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, the ruling stated that the ordinance either be repealed or put to voters. The court required the Houston City Council has thirty days to repeal the ordinance or the issue will be placed on the November ballot (Donchey, 2015). Mayor Annise Parker released a statement that read, “Obviously, I am disappointed and believe the court is in error with this eleventh hour ruling in a case that had already been decided by a judge and jury of citizens. Nonetheless, we will proceed with the steps necessary for City Council to consider the issue. At the same time, we are consulting with our outside counsel on any possible available legal actions. Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance is similar to measures passed by every other major city in the country and by most local corporations. No matter the color of your skin, your age, gender, physical limitations, or sexual orientation, every Houstonian deserves the right to be treated equally. To do otherwise, hurts Houston’s well-known image as a city

Despite that, it has been upheld in favor of, every single time by the Supreme Court. One of the major justices in both decisions was Roberts, for that purpose he has been criticized by liberals and conservatives for voting politically. There was another key court case in the same time frame, same- sex marriage. In this particular case, Roberts voted in discord, although the law still passed with a 5-4 majority. So why did Roberts vote for the one that restrains people and against the one which gives people more freedom? Well, there is an explanation for that. According to Rosen, Roberts attributes his decisions to an idea called “purposivism”; it holds that judges should not limit themselves to the word of a law, rather determine its’ extensive purpose. And due to this idea, Roberts has been able to base his decisions impartially rather than base it on political

In the 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that that state laws banning gay person homosexuality are illegal as an infringement of the privilege to protection. The case of Lawrence v. Texas was a clear takeoff from the Court's conservative procedure in the 1980s and 1990s, which discovered proof of central rights just in exercises the laws themselves considerably ensured ("history and conventions"). Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence's (defendant in the case) home because of a reported weapons aggravation. The officers discovered Lawrence and Garner (defendant) whom at the time was having sex. Lawrence and Garner were charged, indicted, and convicted under Texas law of "deviate sexual intercourse, specifically anal sex, with an individual

In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution,

The argument brought before the Supreme Court was to eliminate the ban on same sex marriage that was still held by thirteen states. This was done as part of a lawsuit called Obergefell versus Hodges. Court documents outline that, “14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” (United States Court of Appeals)