Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community
The history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. LGBTQ+ identities that are accepted by people outside that community change with time, as some identities establish themselves as commonplace while others are just being introduced to non-LGBTQ+ people. However, rights and acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community are nearly always tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQ+ rights issues are controversial, everyone deserves to be equally protected under law regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s
…show more content…
Evans, and the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld a sodomy statute seventeen years prior Lawrence v. Texas no longer reflects societal views, despite it being the precedent before the Lawrence ruling. In Romer v. Evans, which was decided in 1996, it was ruled that laws cannot single out groups of people unless there is legitimate government interest, which in Romer there was not, as desire to “harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest” (Romer v. Evans) according to Justice Kennedy. The Texas sodomy statute singled out gay people, men in particular, and although there might have been a legitimate government interest during the AIDS crisis, there is no longer, and the statute existed long before that (Why Sodomy Laws Matter). In addition to Romer essentially invalidating the sodomy statute, the ruling that allowed the Texas appellate court to justify Lawrence and Garner’s convictions, Bowers v. Hardwick, is outdated. The Supreme Court said in the ruling of this case that there are, “no constitutional protections for acts of sodomy” (Bowers v. Hardwick) and they focused largely on whether or not there was a constitutional precedent that allowed for the protection of sodomy, when all Michael Hardwick was asking for was repealing of the statute, not legal protection. There is clear homophobic bias in the …show more content…
The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas reflects that, and it is justified by the unconstitutionality of the sodomy statute in question, the fact that Lawrence and Garner’s arrest was unconstitutional, the precedent set by Romer, and the outdated nature of the previous ruling on sodomy statutes in Bowers. Additionally, the mental well-being of the LGBTQ+ community will be improved by this ruling, further justifying it and its necessity. People should not be discriminated against simply because they have sex with people whose gender matches their own, and the Lawrence ruling, in reducing the amount of discrimination that is possible, allows an equal future to be a possible
In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).
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
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
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender
In 2004, the student Gay-Straight Alliance at Poway High School in Poway, California held its second annual "Day of Silence" to promote "tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.
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,
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.
Lawrence v. Texas had an impact on the government in two ways. First, the ruling stated that private and consensual homosexual sex is the right to liberty and preserved by the Constitution. Second, Lawrence held that "fundamental rights" are very broad concepts of liberty under numerous and different activities may be kept safe.
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
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
Over the course of 2003 and 2004 two cases concerning same sex rights appeared before the Canadian and American supreme courts. The Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Lawrence et al. v. Texas, which dealt with the constitutionality of sodomy laws prohibiting male on male sodomy. The Canadian Supreme Court also dealt with a case related to same-sex rights, but in a very different setting. The case before the Canadian Supreme Court was Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, a reference case dealing with the constitutionality of a proposed federal law legalizing same-sex marriage. Although both cases ended in what can be considered a “victory” for same-sex rights, they also reveal deep differences between the ways the two countries
Claim: The United States of America should adopt a federal law that gives rights, protection and recognition of LGBT people based on sexual orientation and gender identity as constitutionally and respectfully equal as others uniformly throughout the nation.
Equal rights for homosexuals and others of the LGBT community have been a source of controversy for years now. Homosexuals have been punished for their sexual preference since as early as 1290. In present times, however, the main issues in question come down to marriage, adoption, and bullying. As of today, not all states allow same-sex marriage or same-sex adoption. Bullying has also proved to be a big issue in the LGBT community and it has accounted for about 30% of suicides in the LGBT community. Controversy and debate follow this topic to this day and some states have come to accept certain aspects of it, though there’s still work to be done.
Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics