Pros And Cons Of Lawrence V. Texas

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: INSIDE THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF SODOMY The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, and it also ensures that the government should not deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property without due process. It is an important amendment, but a few questions still remain. Where do we draw the line of a law meeting or contravening the amendment? Are there some groups where this amendment doesn’t apply? The 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas showed just how big a loophole this amendment is. It tore down years of social norms, it erased public morality, and satisfied radical liberals who now push for the barring of any acknowledgement of Christianity in the public square. Even though the left aims for “coexistence”,

The authorities did not find a violent situation, but they did find John Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaged in homosexual intercourse. The couple was charged with and convicted of sodomy. More undisputed facts include the argument with a jealous friend that led to the false alarm. Defendants’ counsel from Lambda Legal argued that the conviction was a violation of equal protection and due process, rights found in the 14th amendment. The case traveled all the way up to the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 decision overturned sodomy laws in every

Hardwick. That case upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws. Justice White wrote the court’s opinion, and in it he wrote “It is true that, despite the language of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which appears to focus only on the processes by which life, liberty, or property is taken,” (Bowers v. Hardwick). He went on to write “Even if the conduct at issue here is not a fundamental right, respondent asserts that there must be a rational basis for the law, and that there is none in this case other than the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable. This is said to be an inadequate rationale to support the law. The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed,” (Bowers v. Hardwick). This case was decided by the justices who acted as curators of the Constitution, and the words contained within. The Constitution says nothing about there being a right to commit sodomy, and the mentalities of the Founding Fathers enforce this. These cases are very similar. Like Lawrence, the Amendment in issue was the 14th. The Amendment, however, was interpreted differently in Lawrence. The ruling in Lawrence struck down the ruling in