The Controversial Issue Of Homosexuality

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

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

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

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,

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.

The judges based their decision on the principle of equality of all before the law. The 14th Amendment requires a state to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex. According to US constitutional law, each US state has its own Constitution, but it is above all the US Federal Constitution. To date 37 of the 50 American states, as well as the District of Columbia, recognized gay marriage. Now, the 14 American states that still refuse to unite two persons of the same sex will not only have to marry

The American Supreme court announced the decision in Lawrence v Texas on June 26, 2003. This commonly known as the law of Texas’ consensual-sodomy. Concerning the prosecution that involved two men caught in the act of sex in a provide abode. Justice Kennedy argued that the gay and lesbian Americans have equal rights as other entitles citizens within the country and that they deserve respectful treatment (Tribe, 2004). This argument received opposition from Justice Scalia who was not happy with the ruling that concerned the acceptance of homosexual into the country’s constitution and made a prediction that there will be moral contamination concerning the sexual conduct in America. I strongly agree that liberty is an important aspect of any country

Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges addressed same-sex marriage. The court ruled 5-4 that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to same-sex couples by the equal protection clause and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Proposition 2 is a violation of the equal protection clause and denies the liberty of same-sex couples the right to marry and it should be deleted from the Texas Constitution for that reason. Texas recognizes marriage licenses from other states for heterosexual couples and ought to for same-sex marriage licenses since the U.S. Constitution has ruled them to be constitutional. Churches and private organizations have the right to their religious beliefs. Government institutions must follow the law and should not deny a person their fundamental right of

The current major state and federal law that is affecting same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA as it also called. The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law that allows each state to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same-sex that has been recognized in another state and it also explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." When asking the people that I interviewed what their feelings were towards the Defense of Marriage Act and how it currently affects the issue of same-sex marriage and the interviewees who were for same-sex marriage felt that the law was inherently wrong and the person I interviewed who was opposed to same-sex marriage thought the law was good except for one obvious flaw with it.

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.

What does love mean if one can’t love the person one wants. For some, love comes easy , meaning they have that ideal relationship, the relationship that is “morally right”. When speaking on gay marriage, there are typically two views. To some it is just absouletly disgusting, and then to others it’s a beautiful thing. “ Opponents of Same Sex Marriage say marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is morally wrong( “At Issue : Same Sex Marriage”) As a human being , whose right is it to tell someone who they can and can not love. Sometimes people may disagree with gay marriage on a spiritual level, but who is to say one person’s sin is less then the next person’s sin? Gay marriage is a beautiful thing, and any human should have their rights no matter who they love. As a human, one deserves to be happy. For many homosexual couples, that may not be the case. With the issues of , same sex marriage, LBGT rights, and gay adoption in general all humans should be able to enjoy the same rights.

The issue of same-sex marriage is an extremely controversial topic within Ireland. The discussion reached its zenith on May 28th, 2015, when the predominately Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. Additionally, the issue divided the population of Ireland into two corners: those who were pro-family versus those who were pro-marriage. Pro-family citizens opposed the marriage equality referendum and the pro-marriage side supported it. A question the pro-family side was forced to consider in the aftermath of the referendum was, does this “victory” come at the cost of undercutting the integrity of the moral fabric of Irish society? Two articles reported on the implications of this monumental event on May 29th of this year. The first article is from Mass Resistance and has no stated author. The other article is written by Conor Payne on Socialist alternative’s website. Although both websites deal with the same event, with further analyzation, major similarities and differences in each site 's credibility, purpose, and intended audience are revealed.