Essay On Sodomy Bill Of Rights

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 Right of Privacy: Is It Protected by the Constitution?" Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html>.

The privacy rights of two consenting adults was established through Griswold v. Connecticut, but it was for heterosexual and not homosexual married couples. In 1986 homosexual sodomy laws were outlawed as the result of Bowers v. Hardwick. In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas outlawed these sodomy laws because it deprives them of their liberty in sexual conduct (Article, Lawrence v. Texas, Week 7). Even though these laws were overturned homosexuals were still discriminated in employment, public services, and banned from teaching, and the military (Sandel, 253).

The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas reflects that, and it is justified by the unconstitutionality of the sodomy statute in question, the fact that Lawrence and Garner’s arrest was unconstitutional, the precedent set by Romer, and the outdated nature of the previous ruling on sodomy statutes in Bowers. Additionally, the mental well-being of the LGBTQ+ community will be improved by this ruling, further justifying it and its necessity. People should not be discriminated against simply because they have sex with people whose gender matches their own, and the Lawrence ruling, in reducing the amount of discrimination that is possible, allows an equal future to be a possible

In as much freedom for expression and belief I essential for every citizen within a state, it is critical to ensure that the general conduct of the citizens is right and also very ethical. Homosexual behavior is not proper, and it affects the morals and conducts of a nation. It destroys the rapport of the society. This is a destruction of the law of nature that is even against the religious beliefs and the general culture of any nation (Hermann, 2016). It is essential to give the citizens the right that they deserve. However, it is important to ensure that freedom never exploited to the extent that it corrupts morals and good conduct. I support the Texas ruling that demands it unlawful for two people of the same sex to engage in the intimate sexual conduct. It is right to say that individuals make offense when engaging in sexual intercourse with an individual of the same sex. The prohibition of gay and lesbianism is not a denial of liberty for the citizens (Goldberg

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

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

Is it proper for gays to use the female CR and lesbians to use the male CR? Would it be proper to allow them living together with same sexes? Most of the time I heared or even personaly observed the third sex seeking for recognition and respect. Though, respect is not asked it is voluntary given; all we need to do is to prove that we deserve to be respected. To gain respect, gays and lesbians must observe ethical standards as well as conform to accepted social behavior and right conduct. It’s an accepted fact that most gays are talented and creative that is why in many occasions there is always the involvement of gays, be it in fasion, modeling,

In regards to the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick Supreme Court decision which upheld Georgia’s sodomy law, Georgia’s attorney general stated, “It is the very act of homosexual sodomy that epitomizes moral delinquency.” A gay couple arrested in their own home because they were having sexual relations that were deemed “unnatural” in the eyes of legislators is the epitome of political oppression. Restrictions on intimacy in private are ridiculousness at its climax. As Rupp confirms, “States have an interest in sexuality: because there is a complex relationship between law and culture; what seems private is not.”

Even though homosexuality has been practiced for a long time in our country, the movement for equality didn’t start until 1969 with the Stonewall Inn police raid. This incident occurred when police in New York entered an inn trying to arrest people partaking in homosexual acts . The people rioted and fought back, and this sparked the gay rights movement. This movement challenged discrimination and pursued marriage equality through demonstrations and legal challenges. The movement’s efforts were considerably hurt by Congress and President Clinton when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) became law in 1996. This law defined marriage as between a man and a woman . The Supreme Court saw cases that revolved around discrimination like Romer v. Evans and cases that revolved around marriage and sexual equality like Lawrence v. Texas . Cases like these would lay the groundwork

The United States was founded on a grand ideal of social freedom. The U.S. Constitution was put into place to protect the rights of the individual by creating a fair and just society. These values of liberty resound for most Americans as assurance that they will never wake up to find they have lost their voice to an all-powerful oligarchy. Americans like to believe they live in what they call “the land of the free.” Of course, we know from the history of the country, the definition of freedom is a controversial topic. Even when the Constitution clearly states, “all men are created equal,” the topic of social equality is what has divided the country in many debates of the meaning of freedom. For the past decade or so, the topic of same-sex

Homosexuality has long been looked down upon by society, and until 1986, sexual relations between two males was considered illegal within New Zealand. A law reform, the process of examining existing laws was put into place to make changes to the Crimes Act 1961 by removing criminal restrictions against consensual homosexual relations between males. Sex between women may not have been illegal, but many lesbians suffered the same hate as gay men and were strong

For the sake of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, American citizens crumple up their own desires and follow laws such as the speed limit and paying taxes. These laws are given by the government, created by citizens to protect all residences. After all, one would give up a few priorities for the name of common good too, right? But there is a borderline between what an individual should and shouldn’t give up. For example, privacy rights. In most cases, people would claim that they have nothing to hide, but the definition of privacy is not covering the atrocious. Privacy is a fundamental value of human right; it is our defense and space permitted to us of being ourselves. The right to privacy is to forestall the invasion of privacy by other people and the government to have absolute regulation over people’s lives.

Gay marriage is a hotly debated issue in today's society. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett offer opposing views in the June 3, 1996 edition of Newsweek. Sullivan's article, “Let Gays Marry,” offers several arguments supporting the issues of same sex marriage. Bennett counters in his article, “Leave Marriage Alone,” that same sex marriages would be damaging to the sanctity of marriage. Each author presents several reasons for the positions they defend and bring up valid points to defend their opinions. William Bennett and Andrew Sullivan share a mutual respect for the values and sacredness of the bond of marriage. Their disagreements stem from who they believe should be allowed to marry.

One case, named Lawrence vs. Texas, states "all sodomy laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non- commercial consenting adults in private” (Dobson). Background behind these beliefs, and laws in some case, seems like direct prejudgement rather than an unexplainable reason not of denying people of equal rights. The most known phrase associated with America is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But its ironic because homosexuals are not aloud to be happy when they can not marry the one they love. In fact, some states have bans against “civil partnerships”. The whole idea of two men or women even being in a relationship is appalled by so many. Also in a positive affect, many countries all over the nation began allowing equal rights marriages to same-sex couples. The first was Denmark in 1989, twenty six years ago , then eleven years later, allowed legal adoptions for married gay couples. With the trend starting, other countries finally saw how legalizing gay marriage was not such a bad idea. Norway developed a Registered Domestic Partnerships, somewhat along the right road, but still with strict guidelines. These were the first two to allow homosexual couples to be together and have children. . In the past ten years Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands have all agreed that "discrimination of marriage laws based on sexual orientation is not only unjust but also unconstitutional" ("Gay Marriage”).