Racism And The Gay Community

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.

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the ruling that allowed the Texas appellate court to justify Lawrence and Garner’s convictions, Bowers v. Hardwick, is outdated.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

In HJ and HT, the Supreme Court ruled that as a State party to the Eurpoean Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom could not refuse asylum to a homosexual person who would be forced to conceal their sexuality in fear of being persecuted back in their home country. Lord Rodger SCJ’s (Male? Check. Attended a Private school? Check. Oxford or Cambridge educated? Check .Former Queen’s Counsel? Check) judgement shows meticulous contemplation of the issues faced by the homosexual asylum seekers :

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

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,

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

This court case doesn’t affect me directly because I am not gay but I do have gay friends that would be impacted by this case. If they were to be involved in homosexual intimacy and this case was decided against Lawrence then they would be arrested and fined for being with their

Magazines also began to ban homosexuality in their catalogues and revert their opinions on homosexuality. “In [1954] the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown, Ebony stopped publishing articles about homosexuality and the black newspapers in Detroit, New York, and Chicago ended their coverage of drag shows” (114). In addition, “Ebony devoted four punishing pages to [Prophet Jones’s] trial, calling it a ‘day of reckoning’” and the Detroit Tribune “denounced [Jones] for giving the impression to whites that the black race was ‘under the guidance of sex-deviate’” (115). Churches, influential people, and some civil rights activists were not any better when it came to their views on homosexuality. “Adam Clayton Powell, the pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church from 1908 to 1937 … ‘delivered a scathing and bitter denunciation of perversion as [practiced] by many moral degenerates who not are not only men and women of prominence in the secular, white and colored, but many of whom fill the pulpits of some of the leading churches in the

In the historic ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges declaring same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, four justices voted against the majority, each giving his or her own reason for dissenting. This momentous decision arose many controversial questions, many believing our justice system was faulty in the decision making process for an issue of such gravity and lasting implications.

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,

Texas court case became a tremendous effect on the year 2093 because it was a similar problem that the Brown vs. Board of Education had. One is dealing with racism and the other with prejudice people against homosexuals. Both cases were ruled by the 14th amendment. Lawrence lawsuit was determined by the “ Due Process Clause”, this action manages the organization of justice and protects someone from his or her legal rights or helps prevent something from occurring to an individual. It can be assured that this evidence of court cases it increased someone to bring another lawsuit so it can come against another in a court of law. There is so much controversy of desegregation and hatred towards homosexuals “- Both reflected at least as much as they produced, changes in social attitudes and practices at least with the majority of voters concurrent with their times”. Continuously overt ime there has been some progress in the way society beliefs and their habits, People’s way of thinking was that if you were a individual that believed or was a homosexual it would be a threat to them personally and to god because how can their beliefs be accepted into society when they like someone from the same sex gender. In those days rarely anyone witnessed whites being together from the same gender ,unlike the African- Americans. That’s why schools boards rejected the black from entering to schools of whites; because they believed that they should have separate schools for black

In the article "Why These Four Justices Rejected Marriage Equality " written by Sunnivie Brydum shows that the four judges are against same sex marriage being legalized in all the 50 states in the United States of America. According to Chief Justice John Robert, the issue of the legalization of

Looking closer into what happened within the court room, Bowers vs Hardwick ended with a five to four ruling against Hardwick, and Lawrence vs Texas ended with a six to three ruling in favor of Lawrence. For Hardwick and the LGBT community, it was a terrible loss. This was frustrating and disappointing for supporters. The decision was criticized widely because it was sending the message to the world that homosexual relations were not accepted or supported in this country. They were not receiving the same rights heterosexual citizens were. The result lead to the question of “why the State may be permitted to apply a generally applicable law to certain persons that it does not apply to others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986), referencing the state choosing to arrest homosexual partners but never heterosexual partners for sodomy. It makes it seem as if as a nation, we allow discrimination because even our cops and government officials participate in it. Alternatively for Lawrence and the ACLU, their case was a tremendous success. It was successful in completing their goal of diminishing the unfair and unequal sodomy laws from the

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

Nowadays, sexual racism are very sensitive topic especially for developed countries. The gender equality is the result women had been struggling to obtain it for long time. In the modern society women finally could obtain rights to work with men together equivalently. However, unfortunately there are still numerous women who are being persecute or are being forced to work unfairly for men.