The Fight For Gay Rights Movement

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 history of the gay rights movement goes as far back as the late 19th century. More accurately, the quest by gays to search out others like themselves and foster a feeling of identity has been around since then. It is an innovative movement that seeks to change existing norms and gain acceptance within our culture. By 1915, one gay person said that the gay world was a "community, distinctly organized" (Milestones 1991), but kept mostly out of view because of social hostility. According to the Milestones article, after World War II, around 1940, many cities saw their first gay bars open as many homosexuals began to start a networking system. However, their newfound visibility only backfired on them, as

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House of Representative’s committee, attempted to uphold the bill’s constitutionality. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decision, but the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decision and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Then, Obergefell vs Hodges officially stated that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in 2015 (“Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell also shared the same opinion, as Justice White read the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Burger's view was that there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy in constitutional terms. Although Chief Justice Burger had a concurring opinion with the Court, he went back in history to support the laws against sodomy. Justice Burger talked about the condemnation of homosexual practices is firmly rooted in Judeas-Christian moral and ethical standards, and that homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. Justice Powell also joined the opinion of the Court.

The Supreme Court Justices agreed on the major premise that, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Liberty as defined by the court is taken or supposed to be true because it consists of the First Amendment rights of “freedom of thought, belief, expression”,but the court also included “ certain intimate conduct” as a liberty. The court is correct that “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty. Because of the courts major premise the court came to the minor premise that, “It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” However, “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty for one to do when it is legal according to the Laws of

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."

When it comes to the gay rights movement, the structure and the history of how it got to where it is today is a huge factor in today’s society. There have been a lot of things that negatively influenced gay rights. In some ways, things have happened in a positive way as well. The gay rights movement today and legalizing gay marriage has struck some people the wrong way because of their beliefs. For the gay community, though, it has been a very positive thing. Some of the big key moments in history went the way they did because of important events and important people causing it to go that way. These include Jeremy Bentham, Magnus Hirschfield, Henry Gerber, the making of the Mattachine Society, Stonewall Riots, Clela Rorex, the Ryan White

The Stonewall Riots in 1969 leading to the first Gay Pride Parade in 1970 started a public discourse on LGBT rights (The Stonewall Riots). In the years to follow, two opposing mass movements manifested: the LGBT movement and the Religious Right movement. The LGBT movement aimed to get equal rights for homosexuals. The Religious Right focused on stopping the perceived moral decay of America and protecting children from lesbians and gays. While these movements had polar opposite goals, they used surprisingly similar methods to get their messages across.

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

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