| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Lawrence v Texas

Page history last edited by mberry 14 years ago
Zach Mulder
03/07/10
E
Lawrence v. Texas 
 
     The main goal in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), as Anthony Kennedy demonstrated in delivering the opinion of the court, was to overturn the decision of Bowers v. Hardwick and establish sodomy laws specifically targeted against homosexuals as unconstitutional. The three main questions posed before the court were whether the 14th Amendment was violated in creating laws that punish sexual intimacy between same-sex couples but not similar behavior in heterosexual relations, whether Mr. Lawrence’s liberty and privacy given to him in the Due Process Clause were violated when he was arrested, and specifically whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled. In fact, Kennedy dedicated almost his entire statement to undermining the logic used in justifying Bowers v. Hardwick. The court found, in a 6-3 ruling, that sodomy laws outlawing only homosexual behaviors were unconstitutional by the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment. Besides the precedence that the ruling overturned, this decision is congruent with the changing attitudes towards sex and the role of women beginning in the 60s and the gay rights movement which gained power in the 1990s both of which were reflected in many Supreme Court decisions during the time. This case was taken almost entirely to overturn the decision of Bowers v. Hardwick. As Kennedy said “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."[1]
     Before Bowers v. Hardwick was decided, there were many Supreme Court decisions that resembled the changing societal norms of the 60s and seemingly opposed the decision given by the court. Starting in 1965, near the end of the Warren court, Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a law that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives.[2] This decision was more than just a manifestation of the changing ideas of sex, but also set the legal precedence of a right to privacy which was implied in the Bill of Rights. But, the ruling was only applicable to married couples. When Warren stepped down as the Chief Justice and retired from the Supreme Court, many thought that his replacement, Warren Burger, would lead a more conservative court and possibly overturn some of the very liberal decisions from the previous court. However, very quickly the Burger expanded the view of the Warren court, and was possibly one of the most liberal courts to date. In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), the court ruled that unmarried couples could also use and purchase contraceptives, just like married couples, and recognized the fact that unwed couples also could engage in sexual intercourse regardless if they were attempting to procreate.[3] Not long after, the court gave the incredibly liberal ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973), in which abortion was protected by the Constitution.[4] All of these rulings exemplify the changing times that happened throughout the 60s and 70s, as the role of marriage changed and many traditional views were being challenged, especially those involving sexual acts based more on pleasure than procreation.
     While the Burger Court was very liberal and expanded sexual understanding and acceptance, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick proved to be too much too quickly in the incredibly conservative environment. With the appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor by Reagan, who often served as a swing vote (swinging towards the conservative side more in her early years on the court and toward the left in her later years), the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold a Georgia law that classified homosexual sex as illicit behavior because the Constitution did not protect the right to engage in homosexual sex, while heterosexual couples could legally perform the same acts. In the majority opinion, Byron White based much of his argument off of supposed longstanding discrimination and dislike of homosexuals, which he believed the Founding Fathers would have agreed upon when writing the Constitution.[5] Thus laws that discriminated against homosexual acts were allowed to stand, the door for gay right’s was essentially shut for 10 years in the Supreme Court, and the Burger Court came to an end as the conservative William Rehnquist became Chief Justice. 
     Even though Rehnquist himself almost always voted against rights for homosexuals, during his reign as Chief Justice, two very important decision in favor of rights for homosexuals were decided: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas. In Romer v. Evans, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that an amendment to the Colorado Constitution preventing homosexuals and bisexuals from receiving protection from discrimination or other protected status under the law was not valid because it was discriminatory and did not protect a legitimate state interest.[6] After Bowers v. Handwick, Romer v. Evans opened the door once again to gay rights, and ultimately led to an extremely similar case to Bowers v. Handwick being brought in front of the Supreme Court. 
     Late one September night, Deputy Joseph Quinn entered the unlocked apartment of John Lawrence because he had received a call from a next door neighbor who claimed there was a weapons disturbance. However, when Quinn entered the apartment, he found Lawrence having consensual anal sex with Tyron Garner, who were both arrested for violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law. The law declared that any engagement in devious sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex was prohibited and a low misdemeanor. Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges; however, they appealed to have the charges dropped based on the right to privacy and the 14th Amendment equal protection right because the law did not penalize heterosexual couples. They lost the case, but appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court for criminal matters, which did not choose to review the case. They then challenged the law once again in the Supreme Court, where it was finally heard. Although the next door neighbor who reported that there was a weapons disturbance later told courts that he was lying, and pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report, the right of the police to enter the house was never called into question.[7]
     Instead, the Supreme Court addressed three main issues, as laid out in Kennedy’s majority opinion: whether the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law violated the 14th Amendment right of equal protection under the law, whether the Texas law also violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, and whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled. The court ruled 6-3, that the Due Process Clause was broken by the Texas law, with Sandra O’Connor in concurrence that the law violated equal protection under the law promised in the 14th Amendment. Thus, the previous ruling of Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled, and Kennedy, who gave the majority opinion focused almost entirely on criticizing the logic used from the previous ruling, and ultimately ruled that “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” In the dissent, Scalia focused on the broader implications for other sexual acts that are “immoral and unacceptable,” like “fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.” He argues that some viewed homosexual behavior as just as horrible as the other listed acts, and since laws discriminating against homosexuals have now been ruled unconstitutional, laws against any of these other actions could subsequently be ruled unconstitutional also. Furthermore, Scalia believed that the court was essentially adhering to the agenda of the homosexuals in a non democratic way. He believes that laws either for or against same-sex relationships should be decided by the people in a democratic way and that the Texas law (having gone through normal democratic channels) was democratic.[8] In a sense, Scalia was right in that the ruling has had broad implications across the country.
     This ruling has led to many changes across the states, from repealed laws to increased debate over banning gay marriage at the state level. For example, Proposition 8 in California passed in 2008 which defined marriage as only between a man and a women, and is now up for judicial review. Personally, I believe this case has ramifications beyond just sodomy laws, but combined with Romer v. Evans, there is no legal grounds for a state to ban same-sex marriage, especially under the Due Process Clause, where “life, liberty and property” cannot be deprived by a state without due process of law, there is no reason that homosexual couples should be discriminated against. By prohibiting a man from marrying another man, or a woman from marrying another woman, the state is essentially depriving an individual of their most basic liberty of being with the person they love. It is completely contradictory to movies, books, and songs talk about unconditional love and a happily ever after while the government basically adds an asterisk saying “as long as it is between a man and a woman.”
     While Lawrence v. Texas was an incredibly important decision to overturn the precedence set forth by Bowers v. Hardwick, there is still a massive disconnect between homosexual and heterosexual rights that must be addressed. Since the 60s, the Supreme Court has been deciding more and more cases away from traditional perceptions of marriage and sex. And now, as many states teeter back and forth between banning gay marriage and failing to pass the law, the Supreme Court must step in again to end discrimination against homosexual couples, and secure the liberty and protection under the law for all citizens. 

 

Footnotes

  1. JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lawrencevtexas.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  2. GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  3. EISENSTADT v. BAIRD http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/405/438.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  4. ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html (Accessed 03/07/10).
  5. BOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA v. HARDWICK ET AL. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/bowers.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  6. ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, v. RICHARD G. EVANS http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  7. JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lawrencevtexas.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).
  8. JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lawrencevtexas.html (Accessed 03/07/2010).

Comments (1)

mberry said

at 9:54 pm on Mar 8, 2010

Just awesome Zach! I changed a bit of the Amendment 2 section because you had construed it too narrowly (it wasn't just about same sex marriage)...otherwise terrific! DB

You don't have permission to comment on this page.