...In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the resolution of the case was dependent on the U. S. Supreme Court affirming the Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in sodomy was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. In order for the Court to do this they needed to consider the holding in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, by examining the issue of whether the U.S. Constitutional “confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” In Bowers the Court upheld Georgia’s anti-sodomy law, but what had changed in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme Court abandoned stare decisis or the doctrine of precedent? In order to fully under the case of Lawrence v. Texas one must reexamine the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. In 1982, Michael Hardwick was...
Words: 1276 - Pages: 6
...When discussing the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the holding was justified by the statement that the Constitution does not discuss a right that legally allows homosexuals to engage in the act of sodomy. Further, the Court noted that in other cases that deal with relationships, this case does not resemble them in any way. Also, this holding was justified by exploring the fact that sodomy has long been criminalized throughout history, and it is a tradition that is “deeply rooted”. It was mentioned that if one stated that it is the right of the person to engage in this act due to the concept of liberty, it would be described as foolish. Moreover, even though this act occurred within the privacy of a home, the court held that this did not affect the justification that this action was still considered sodomy, and illegal. Finally, it was highlighted boldly that just because part of the nation believes the consensual act of sodomy should be legal, does not even slightly mean that this validates the claim in the case, nor will it alter the immorality and illegality of the law (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986)....
Words: 843 - Pages: 4
...Griswold v. Connecticut: The Right to Privacy, Equal Protection, and Legalizing Sodomy In 1965 the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut the Supreme Court recognized penumbra emanations regarding the right to privacy protected from governmental intrusion. Plaintiffs Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and C. Lee Buxton, a licensed physician serving as the Medical Director for the League in New Haven, were found guilty and charged as accessories to Connecticut’s General Statutes §§ 53-52 and 54-196 for providing advice and prescribing a contraceptive device for a heterosexual married couple. The statutes at issue stated that: (1) Persons preventing conception using drugs, medicines,...
Words: 1626 - Pages: 7
...government is the branch that is elected by the President and confirmed by the Senate ("Judicial branch," 2013). Federal courts are in place to interpret the law ("Judicial branch," 2013). They cannot make, or enforce the law; they simply interpret it as the social trends dictate ("Judicial branch," 2013). For instance, in the early 80s, when society was afraid of same sex couples and what happened behind closed doors, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding the original ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. This ruling stated that it was constitutionally correct to uphold a charge of sodomy between two consenting homosexual adults behind closed doors ("Bowers v hardwick," 2013). Later, when it was more acceptable to be homosexual, the Supreme Court reversed its position in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Like the state of Georgia, Texas had a law that stated there was to be no sodomy of any kind. It did not matter if it was between consenting adults behind closed doors. Since this case happened in 2003 when the Gay Rights Movement was gathering publicity and...
Words: 1159 - Pages: 5
...In the Supreme Court Case of Lawrence vs. Texas, the opinions of the judges, and why the majority say “yah” and the minority say “nay” After a ruling in a Supreme Court Case the judges will state their opinions, whether it is a majority opinion, concurring opinions, or dissenting opinions. The reasoning and logic that goes into each of these justices decisions on whether a law has been broken, outdated, or irrelevant in the modern times in America in relation to the Constitution and past relevant cases can be heard and seen by the opinions expressed by the justices. In the Supreme Court Case of Lawrence v Texas, a case in 2003 about two men that were charged in Texas with committing sodomy, the vote came to a six to three decision, after which,...
Words: 1118 - Pages: 5
...In Baehr v Lewin, Hawaiian couples argued that denying same-sex couple marriage licenses was a form of gender discrimination that was prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause in Hawaii’s State Constitution. The judge agreed with the couples, and the couples won their case. However the judge called for a commission to secure the right to same-sex marriage and advise the couple to sue again. When they sued again in Baehr v. Miike (1996), the judge found that denying same-sex couples to right to marriage was gender discrimination that was prohibited by the state’s Equal Protection Clause. The judge said that same-sex marriage should be legal, but the ruling stayed pending on an appeal to the Supreme Court. During this time, Republicans in Hawaii’s congress passed the Hawaii State Constitutional Amendment on Marriage, in early 1998, banning same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. In late 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that it cannot allow same-sex marriage...
Words: 1702 - Pages: 7
...Same-Sex Marriage Some people believe marriage means the combination of the two opposite-sexes or a union between a male and female. Other say that marriage is the permanent relationship between two people regardless of their sex. Most member of churches and religions are against same sex marriages and they said that gay and lesbian marriages are not acceptable in our society. However, same sex marriages should be legalized in the United States because gay marriage is request for equality and will not harm opposite sex marriage or children of same sex marriages. Marriage equality has been approved for same-sex couples in many states of the United States. “By Court Decision, State Legislative, and popular Vote, 16 states have legal same sex marriage and 33 states ban same-sex marriage in America,” says Revel & Riot, marking a new point for same sex marriage down the Defense of Marriage Act while upholding marriage equality in California. As a result, same-sex marriages were approved in California on June 28, 2013. Now gays and lesbians are free to fall in love and get married to whoever they want. In addition, marriage equality brought same sex couples quite a lot of benefits such as “hospital visitation, child custody, adoption, parenting rights, medical decision-making power, and automatic inheritance, divorce protections, spousal and child support, access to family insurance policies”…etc. (Revel & Riot). However, people of 33 states disagree with marriage equality...
Words: 1037 - Pages: 5
...| | | A Historical Critique of Homosexual Exclusions from the Armed Forces using the concepts of Michel Foucault From 1989 to 1999, the time period of the Clinton Administration, a homosexual force entered the American consciousness. Court cases and rhetoric of the 80s incited a discourse in which homosexuality was "re-articulated, re-negotiated, and unmistakably re-repressed" (Davis 3). Supreme Court judgment and actions taken by Congress with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy exemplify theories of sexuality and power expressed in the philosophies of Michel Foucault. Foucault was a French-born philosopher historian. He examined social institutions such as medicine, psychiatry, the prison system, and the human sciences in general. Specifically he focused on how these institutions relate to power interactions. For a time he was associated with structuralism, which is an intellectual movement in which the culture of humanity is semiotically analyzed. However he distanced himself from the structuralism movement after the 60s. He wrote on a wide array of topics from knowledge to power and discourse. He considered himself "Nietzschean" (Fox 169). In viewing his own system of philosophy this way, he rejected the postmodernist label attributed to him. In fact, he held that his work was in line with the modernity of the philosophies of...
Words: 3620 - Pages: 15
...conversation about the interpretation of Constitutional rights that runs parallel with it. This history has most recently culminated in the Obergefell v Hodges case, in which the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the entire nation. This paper begins with a brief glimpse at the history of the topic of same-sex marriage in the United States. The paper will then focus on the case of Obergefell v Hodges, and will specifically analyze the contentious role of the interpretation of the Constitution involved in the final decision. Cleary the Supreme Court, an extremely high authority in the United States, found that that the nationalizing of same-sex marriage was constitutional. However there were dissenting opinions that opposed the decision on the grounds that the Constitution specified that such rights were up to the state legislature. Lastly,...
Words: 424 - Pages: 2
...The judiciary is a government branch responsible for interpreting the constitution. Strict constructionists and judicial activism are two sides of the same body that guide a judge in the decision making of court cases. Strict construction is defined as the interpretation of the law while basing the argument on the narrow and literal meaning of the law. It does not make exceptions for the difference in times of writing the constitution and conditions experienced today, changes in the society and innovations. Judicial activism, on the other hand, considers what the language of the policy maker intended to capture from an extended point of view to consider the societal complexity and current standards of conduct for humans (Pandey, 2012). The strict constructionist limits the judicial discretion, restricting judges in determining legal cases and especially those outlined in the Constitution. Their discretion is only allowed when the decision is necessary for resolving a substantial dispute between antagonizing parties. It expects judges faced with constitutional questions to allow substantive deference to ideas argued by elected branches and restrain their actions only when there are clear violations of the constitutional limits (Mark, 2012). The concept controls the court to interpret laws and take part in policy-making. Judges are expected to pass...
Words: 1238 - Pages: 5
...For the people who wanted the government to do something about the AIDS epidemic are perfect examples of be careful what you wish for. When in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians were no longer worth of being protected by the US Constitution in Bowers v. Hardwick. Because of the government's rejection, it gave the gay movement another strong push to fight to be treated as equal citizens by creating the ACT UP organization. Silence was no longer an option. Many of the gays who were in denial about AIDS had to finally face the facts when nearly everyone around them started to become infected. They had to take action when people in power would not take action for them. I think that The Silence = Death Project proved that the gays had finally woken from their complacent slumber of accepting the bare minimum of acceptance since Stonewall and they were ready to fight for the right of life, government funded research, and acceptance once again. I don't think those in favor of Bowers expected such a strong response from the gay community. From the Lavender Hill Mob traveling across the county to not only protest Chief Justice Burger but also CDC conference on AIDS and Kramer being a strong spokesperson, I think the the gay movement provided a solid front to prove that they...
Words: 625 - Pages: 3
...Running head: Marriage 1 Same-Sex Marriage Brandy Rajchart Soc 120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibilities December 10, 2012 Marriage 2 I have chosen to explore and research the topic of gay marriage. I will be discussing topics in regards to religion and how it offends the religious communities. I will also be touching on the topics of Laws and States that approve and disapprove of Gay Marriages, and why gay and lesbian couples want to get married. The most common religious argument against same-sex marriage revolves around scripture, which many religious communities believe came directly from the mouth of God, and they interpret scripture to forbid homosexuality, and by extension, same-sex marriage. The most quoted scripture in the bible comes from Leviticus 18:22, cited from the new International classic Reference Bible, which says “ Do not lie with a man as one lies with a women; that is detestable” (1988,133). Marriage 3 Many people who are religious only view marriage as a man and a woman, never a woman with a women or a man with a man to them they think Gay or Lesbian couples are living in sin and will never be let into God’s Kingdom. Before the nay religious...
Words: 1124 - Pages: 5
...Marbury v. Madison On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010. In the Presidential election of 1800, the Democratic-Republic party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams. With the loss of the election, the Federalist Party began to diminish. Although losing the presidency, John Adams and his party was still in control for a couple months. In an attempt to maintain the Federalist Parties presence, John Adams appointed a number of Judges. All of these appointees were properly commissioned, but John Adams Secretary of State failed to deliver three commissions. With one of these commissions being a man by the name of William Marbury. Thomas Jefferson began his Presidency on March 5, 1801. After learning of these Federalists appointed by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the remaining commissions. With William...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...choosing to shorten the period of suffering before death by self administered drugs prescribed for the purpose of hastening death. Colorado thereby violates the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by enforcing C.A.S.A. Dr. Fountaine’s and Ms. Stephenson’s case does not require this Court to decide any moral or ethical dilemmas regarding how people should, or may, accept or confront their own death. Rather, it is this Court’s responsibility to recognize that citizens have a constitutionally protected right in making significant life decisions for themselves, such as hastening one’s own death or asking another for help in the same, without the umbrella of judicial or legislative imposition. The beginning of this case should be examined similar to that of Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113, in the reproductive rights context. Under the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, states should be permitted to regulate, not prohibit, physician assisted death. “The liberty protected by due process covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights…But such liberty can be limited if the state shows a compelling interest (not just a legitimate one)” Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113. States do possess a ‘compelling interest’ in preventing citizens from unnecessary death. However, this power extends to protecting the citizens from irrational, ill informed, or pressured decisions in that capacity. To that end, states do have...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...Team Debate Paper Stacie Hearne, Manita Johnson, Jessica Lightfoot, and Roy Tucker BCOM/275 October 4, 2012 Kwanis Nelson Debate Team Paper “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Gay marriage has become one of the hottest issues in politics. Supporters of gay marriage have compared their struggle for equality to an era when African- Americans were denied their right to vote, some have even argued that to be denied of your right to marry is also a direct violation of your civil rights. Non supporters of gay marriage beliefs are based more from a religious stand point as well personal values. With homosexuality being seen by a vast majority as being immoral and sinful, the biggest argument to date is that many people feel by allowing gay marriage to take place that this will weaken the institution of marriage and family values. On September 21, 1996 both houses of Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA a federal law which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This law, signed by then President Bill Clinton denies the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Not only does this law prevent same-sex couples to marry, it also denies these men and women certain monetary benefits such as public employee benefits, social security survivors...
Words: 2591 - Pages: 11
