GAYS AND JUDGMENTS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT

This article aims to highlight how in less than twenty years the legal status of gay people in the U.S. has been radically changed. We start from the XIV Amendment.

___________

U.S. CONSTITUTION – AMENDMENT XIV – SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

_______________

The amendment subordinates the State’s right to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, to the condition that it takes place with due process of law. This is not easy to understand for an European like I’m because in the European Union the death penalty is prohibited by constitutional laws. But here we must deal with the legal status of gay people in the U.S.. The clause of due process under the fourteenth amendment has traditionally been relied on by gay people as a basis for the recognition of their rights in the U.S..

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the process “Bowers versus Hardwick”, 478 U.S. 186, called shortly Bowers judgment, delivered on 10.06.1986

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html ), considered the charge made to the Statute of Georgia according to which it would violate individual rights through condemnation of sodomy between consenting adult males, concluded that:

1) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court’s prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

2) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” is, at best, facetious.

3) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights.

4) The fact that homosexual behavior occurs in the intimacy of a private home doesn’t matter at all.

5) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws.

With this judgment of June 1986, in practice the Supreme Court considers legitimate the laws of individual states that criminalize specific sexual practices or discriminate against homosexuality as such.

I reproduce below the fundamental judgment LAWRENCE versus TEXAS that in a social climate profoundly changed has radically overturned the earlier decision of 1986.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)

_______________

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT


No. 02—102. Argued March 26, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003


Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point.

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3—18.

(a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. For this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its Bowers holding. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy … ,” 478 U.S., at 190–discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. Pp. 3—6.

(b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots. 478 U.S., at 192. It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character. Far from possessing “ancient roots,” ibid., American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. Even now, only nine States have singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution. Thus, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger there indicated. They are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated. The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis523 U.S. 833, 857. Pp. 6—12.

(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States, including Texas, that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct), there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. Casey, supra, at 851–which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624–which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. The stigma the Texas criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. Although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms, and registration as sex offenders under state law. Where a case’s foundations have sustained serious erosion, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee501 U.S. 808, 828. Bowers’ holding has not induced detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. Casey, supra, at 855—856. Bowers causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after it contradict its central holding. Pp. 12—17.

(d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled. This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve 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 the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.

    Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

_______
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “GAYS AND JUDGMENTS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT

  1. GODS’ law should and is always above mans’ law.Sodomy is an abomination unto this worlds’ GREAT GOD. When as sinister and sinful act as sodomy between to men, whether consenting or not, no true christian can condone it.. When he accepts , condones,or tolerates it, he might as well concider himself guilty as well. The BIBLE SAYS we fight not against flesh and blood but against rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places.That means and includes atheist and agnostics who are the lawmakers and the judges in our supreme court…GOD help us and GOD bless America.

  2. I do not blame at all people who, according to their conscience, believe to find God’s law in the Bible, but that law should be applied without exception, as it is written in Deuteronomy, including practices such as the levirate and the stoning of adulterers. Zeal in the application of the law of God is found instead particularly in combating against gays. These little inconsistencies are excusable and are not what I want to talk about, but it’s however a matter of fact that that zeal against gays is heightened at a time when civil GLBT rights assert themselves more clearly and not only because of the decisions of the Supreme Court legally watertight, but due to the popular vote. A very documented analysis can be read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States .
    But also in the European Union the situation of same-sex couples is in rapid evolution, an updated analysis can be read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe .
    I want to emphasize that gay marriage is a matter of liberty and civilization that does not alter the heterosexual marriage. I’ve known gay couples linked by a relationship of deep love, capable of total self-giving, self-sacrifice and altruism of the highest level. Morality, dignity and often generosity towards the next of these people require that their relationship is recognized as a true love relationship. I am not speaking from hearsay, these are things that I see every day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s