Mr. Lawrence helped brg about the Supreme Court’s cisn Lawrence v. Texas, which stck down a Texas law that ma gay sex a crime and swept away sodomy laws a dozen other stat.
Contents:
- TWENTY YEARS AFTER A BREAKTHROUGH TEXAS SE LNCHED A NEW ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
- ACLU HISTORY: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: A WATERSHED FOR GAY RIGHTS
- JOHN LAWRENCE, PLATIFF GAY RIGHTS CASE, DI AT 68
TWENTY YEARS AFTER A BREAKTHROUGH TEXAS SE LNCHED A NEW ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
Jt days earlier, the two quiet men wh workg-class roots fed their nam to a pivotal moment Ameri’s gay rights movement.
ACLU HISTORY: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: A WATERSHED FOR GAY RIGHTS
Supreme Court overturned Texas’ ban on sodomy, lg that stat uld not crimalize homosexualy. From left: John Lawrence, attorney Mchell Kate and Tyron Garner celebrate the landmark Supreme Court lg on a Texas anti-sodomy law durg a gay Pri para Hoton on June 28, 2003.
A ban on gay sex remas on the Texas books today. Notably, transgenr people still face discrimatn and vlence at higher rat than their lbian, gay and bisexual peers. “They were jt good, average guys jt tryg to get through life wh the hand that was alt ’em, ” said Lane Lewis, a longtime gay rights activist Hoton who intified their se as an opportuny to challenge the state’s sodomy ban.
In 1991, a 27-year-old Hoton rint named Pl Brosard was murred a gay-bashg cint. In rponse, the Hoton Police Department anized an unrver operatn Montrose to tch gay-bashers, but the effort was quickly disntued bee of safety risks to officers.
JOHN LAWRENCE, PLATIFF GAY RIGHTS CASE, DI AT 68
Furthermore, gay, lbian and bisexual Texans were not ee om some law enforcement officers’ disda for their muny. For s leadg up to that fateful arrt of Lawrence and Garner 1998, the Hoton Police Department sometim raid gay bars and harassed those ngregatg some of the only safe spac for LGBTQ+ people at the time.
Lewis, the LGBTQ+ activist, said overturng Texas’ anti-sodomy law wasn’t the end goal for the gay rights movement. “Can you image the Supreme Court wantg to protect the marriage rights of gay and lbian cizens when gays and lbians were still nsired crimals 13 stat?
When Lewis was faxed the police report om the arrt, he was stunned bee for so long the gay rights movement had been wag for a se like this one to appear. The se was nsired a good one to challenge the nstutnaly of crimalizg homosexualy bee there was only one charge — based on Sectn 21. By tablishg the precent that all of the nstutnal rights that were available to other people are now available for gay people — rights prevly nied unr the Bowers v.