Lawrence v. Texas

In response to a weapon disturbance on September 17,1998, police found John Geddes Lawrence engaging in sexual intercourse with another man, Tyron Garner. Lawrence was then arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse. Deviate sexual intercourse is defined as any contact of any of the genitals of one person to another person’s mouth or anus or the penetration of the genitals or anus of another person with an object. 

Lambda Legal asked that the Supreme Court considered three things:

1. If the convictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed equal protection of the laws

   1. If the convictions in their own home violated their right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

   2. If Bowers vs. Hardwick should be overturned

The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case in December 2002.

Two opposing sides of the court case

Texas: Lawrence violating the Texas Sodomy Law

Lawrence: Texas violated his due process of law and private interests 

Outcome of the court case

The vote was 6-3 in favor of Lawrence, and the Texas Sodomy Law was found unconstitutional. The court concluded that this act violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. There were no minors, the sex was consensual by both parties, it was in the privacy of their home, and the police had no reason to come into the home like they did; there was no case against Lawrence.

“This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse to consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involved two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.” 

Even though this law was about sex, it became more than just that. Any person should be able to choose to enter a relationship within the privacy of their own home and still have dignity as a free person. The State should not have the right to set boundaries to any relationship that is not harmful to anyone.

History does not single out homosexuality; there was no category between homosexual and heterosexual people. The law was prohibition of non-procreative sexual activities and did not include acts done in private. The Texas sodomy statute made it illegal for someone for engage in deviate sexual intercourse and changed this law in 1973 to target homosexuals instead of everyone having the same rules to follow.

Effects and significance

Effect of Bowers v. Hardwick

The 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas allowed for gays and lesbians to enjoy equal protection under the law.  This ruling overturned the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling which criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting homosexuals. This law had been used to justify discrimination in employment, adoption, custody, immigration, and many other areas of life for LGBT people.  Justice Anthony Kennedy who delivered the opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case had stated that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it should be and now is overruled."

Immediate Effects

One of the major immediate effects was the invalidation of all thirteen of the existing state anti-sodomy laws, regardless of whether or not they applied to homosexual couples or to all couples.  Because of the broad ruling of Lawrence v. Texas, the states cannot criminalize private, consensual, adult sexual behavior between anyone. 

The Impact on the LGBTQ Community

As recorded in Lesbian News, a Lesbian newspaper from 2003, it is reported that the striking down of the sodomy laws in thirteen states was a historic civil rights victory.  The sodomy laws were a major roadblock to equality—labeling the entire LGBT community as criminals and “second class citizens.”  Repealing these laws helped bring light to the idea that love, sexuality, and family play the same role in LGBT people’s lives as they do for everyone else.  This is the first time that gay men and lesbians have fundamental privacy rights.  

One Year After Lawrence v. Texas

Gay attorneys and activists were thrilled with the decision. While many LGBT people were celebrating in the hopes that the Texas case was one step closer to the legalization of homosexual marriage, opponents of gay rights were fueled with rage to fight back. This was the beginning of the same sex marriage movement.   The backlash from the sodomy ruling contributed to the proposal of the Federal Marriage Amendment which proposed to change the Constitution to ban any legal recognition for gay couples. Within the first month of the sodomy ruling, the Federal Marriage Act in the U.S House of Representatives had gained 50 more cosponsors.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was the first to announce that the ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.  The Lawrence case was the first legal case referred to by the justices when backing up their decision.  This case has changed the traditional ideas regarding homosexuals and their fundamental constitutional rights, putting LGBT people in a stronger position in court. 

Primary source analysis

SummaryChairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Rick Santorum wrote an article in USA Today on July 10, 2003 titled, "Gay unions: A matter of rights to a threat to traditional marriage?",  which discussed the effect that the Lawrence v. Texas case had on the status of the legalization of gay marriage. Santorum claimed that this Texas case could lead to the legalization of homosexual marriage and discussed both pro and anti-same-sex marriage arguments, siding with the latter. We chose this source because Santorum was trying to appeal to the reader to discourage same-sex marriage, making this source a good example of opposition from conservatives. 

Analysis of quotes

“This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason -- it is the institution that ensures the society’s future through the upbringing of children. Furthermore, it’s just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”

This quote is saying that marriage is protected because its sole purpose is procreation; why is this? It’s arguable that a marriage is more than just for the purpose of having children- it’s the union of two people. The quote also mentions “healthy societies around the world.” implying that homosexuality is still seen as a mental illness in Santorum’s eyes. At this point in time, it’s been 30 years since the American Psychological Association (APA) took homosexuality off of the list of mental illnesses. Santorum then went on to say that it’s common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This is because it was the law for marriage to be between a man and a woman- of course it’s going to be known as the union between a man and a woman; that’s the traditional view of marriage. Why does the traditional way have to be the only way? LGBTQ activists would find fault with this logic on the basis that what is "traditional" is not necessarily "fair."

“Moreover, traditional family breakdown is the single biggest social problem in America today.”

During this time period, high divorce rates and having children out-of-wedlock was the largest factor in traditional family breakdown.  It is believed that the marriage between a man and a woman is what’s considered to be traditional and most beneficial for children and for society. This being said, many people during this time feared that adding same-sex marriage to the equation would further weaken the institution of marriage. While studies showed how the family breakdowns at the time contributed to the increase in youth crimes, teen pregnancies, violent crimes, and child poverty, there is no actual evidence showing a correlation between the upbringing of children in same-sex households and these outcomes.  Therefore, with lack of evidence listed about the outcomes of a same-sex couple, these assumptions are another representation of the discrimination towards the LGBT community.

Sources

Sources of information

• • A. K. (2003, Mar 26). Lawrence v. texas. Wall Street Journal Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/398889851?accountid=10730

  • Feder, J. (2003, July 1). Homosexuality and the Constitution: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Retrieved from http://congressional.proquest.com/congressional/result/pqpresultpage.gispdfhitspanel.pdflink/$2fapp-bin$2fgis-congresearch$2f0$2f5$2f2$2fe$2fcrs-2003-aml-0041_from_1_to_12.pdf/entitlementkeys=1234|app-gis|congresearch|crs-2003-aml-0041

  • Lawrence v. Texas. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102

  • Lee, R. (2004, June 25). One year after Lawrence vs. Texas. Houston Voice. pp. 1-8. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=13809029&site=ehost-live

  • Leonard, A. (2004). Sodomy Laws and Sodomy Law Reform. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/sodomy_laws_S.pdf

  • McBride, A. (2007). Landmark Cases. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_bowers.html

  • Naeger, J. (2004). AND THEN THERE WERE NONE: THE REPEAL OF SODOMY LAWS AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS OF GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS. St. John's Law Review, 78(2), 397-425. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=13514543&site=ehost-live

  • Rick, S. (n.d). Gay unions: A matter of rights or a threat to .. USA Today. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=J0E007964235203&site=ehost-live

  • Spindelman, M. (2004). SURVIVING LAWRENCE v. TEXAS. Michigan Law Review, 102(7), 1615-1667. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=15525904&site=ehost-live

  • U.S. Supreme Court. (2003). John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner. U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Wright, E. (2003, August 1). U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law. Lesbian News, p. 12. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.elon.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=10623476&site=ehost-live

Sources of images

• Map of US Sodomy Laws attributed to Lokal_Profil used under Creative Commons License

• US Supreme Court attributed to David used under Creative Commons License

• Photo of Justice Anthony Kennedy attributed to the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Public Domain

• Photo of Senator Rick Santorum attributed to John Pemble used under the Creative Commons License

Contributors

Emily Cameron

Sabrina Campelo

Alexis Vondran