Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Lawrence V Texas

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute banning homosexual sodomy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are a private matter protected by liberty. While homosexual conduct may not be a fundamental right, adults are entitled to engage in private sexual conduct without government intervention. This overturned the Court's prior ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that found no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lawrence V Texas

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    74 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute banning homosexual sodomy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are a private matter protected by liberty. While homosexual conduct may not be a fundamental right, adults are entitled to engage in private sexual conduct without government intervention. This overturned the Court's prior ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that found no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Lawrence v Texas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute banning homosexual sodomy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are a private matter protected by liberty. While homosexual conduct may not be a fundamental right, adults are entitled to engage in private sexual conduct without government intervention. This overturned the Court's prior ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that found no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views2 pages

    Lawrence V Texas

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute banning homosexual sodomy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are a private matter protected by liberty. While homosexual conduct may not be a fundamental right, adults are entitled to engage in private sexual conduct without government intervention. This overturned the Court's prior ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that found no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lawrence v.

    Texas
    Doctrine: While homosexual conduct is not a fundamental right, intimate sexual
    relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    FACTS:
     John Lawrence, Tyrone Garner, and Robert Eubanks were hanging out in
    Lawrence's apartment (Garner and Eubanks were a couple). Eubanks, angry that
    Garner and Lawrence were flirting, left the apartment ("to get a soda" daw) then
    called the police, claiming a disturbance at the apartment. Police arrived, with a
    deputy alleging he caught Lawrence and Garner engaged in anal sex in the
    bedroom.
     Lawrence and Garner were charged with "deviate sexual intercourse” aka anal
    sex with a person not of the opposite sex, under the Texas Penal Code. The men
    were arrested, held over night and charged with violating a Texas statute making
    it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual
    conduct.
     Specifically the statute provided “A person commits an offense if he engaged in
    deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex” and goes on
    to define deviate sexual intercourse as follows: “ any contact between any part of
    the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person or the
    penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object”. The
    two men were then convicted before a Justice of the Peace.
     Lawrence's attorneys raised the Constitutional challenge, claiming that the law
    violated the Constitution when it only prevented homosexual couples from
    engaging in anal sex, while allowing the same for heterosexual couples.

    Issue & Ruling


    WON the criminal conviction is a violation of the right to liberty and privacy as protected
    by the due process clause of the 14th amendment? YES
     (Written by Justice Kennedy) The court does not focus on protecting sodomy
    specifically, but rather, personal relationships. It explains that despite the fact
    that the statutes in questions purport to only prohibit sex, “Their penalties and
    purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the
    most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places,
    the home.” The court found it alarming that the statute in question sought to
    control a personal relationship, stating that forming personal relationships is one
    of the liberties we have, and should be able to choose such relationships without
    fear of being punished or classified as criminals.
     The court focuses on the fact that the laws should not target relations between
    consenting adults in private, as this is what liberty hinges on. The court states
    that adults are entitled to respect for their private lives, and “Their right to liberty
    under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct
    without intervention of the government”. The court ultimately applies a rational
    basis review, stating that the Texas statute in question furthers no legitimate
    state interest which can justify an intrusion into a personal and private life of an
    individual.
     This case overrules Bowers v. Hardwick, which had held that there is no
    fundamental right to engage in sodomy, or homosexual activities. Bowers was
    based on the fact that historically sodomy has been outlawed, but this court finds
    that historically it was only outlawed to protect individuals from sexual predators,
    and that rationale should not be used when consenting adults are involved,
    specifically stating “The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve
    persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships
    where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or
    prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal
    recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

    You might also like