On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court stck down a Texas law banng gay sodomy — a watershed moment for gay rights. But 15 years later, same-sex upl face another urt se that aims to roll back their rights.
Contents:
- FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER LANDMARK GAY RIGHTS SE, SAME-SEX UPL TEXAS STILL FACE CHALLENG URT
- TWENTY YEARS AFTER A BREAKTHROUGH TEXAS SE LNCHED A NEW ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
- TWENTY YEARS AFTER TEXAS SE LNCHED ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
- ACLU HISTORY: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: A WATERSHED FOR GAY RIGHTS
- THE SUPREME COURT RULGS THAT HAVE SHAPED GAY RIGHTS AMERI
- JOHN LAWRENCE, PLATIFF GAY RIGHTS CASE, DI AT 68
- JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU
FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER LANDMARK GAY RIGHTS SE, SAME-SEX UPL TEXAS STILL FACE CHALLENG URT
* texas gay rights case *
Gay rights groups hailed the verdict as a historic day the evolutn of civil rights the Uned Stat, whereas nservativ stigated the cisn as a sign of the untry’s moral y.
The Lambda Legal Defense and Edutn Fund, a natnal legal anizatn dited to gay rights, took up Lawrence’s se and appealed through the Texas urt system on the grounds that vlated the equal protectn clse of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibed the stat om nyg “to any person wh s jurisdictn the equal protectn of the laws”) and a siar clse of the Texas state nstutn. Evans (1996)—which void an amendment to the Colorado state nstutn prohibg laws barrg discrimatn agast gays—there was a good chance that Bowers would be overturned. Whether Petners’ crimal nvictns unr the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law—which crimaliz sexual timacy by same-sex upl, but not intil behavr by different-sex upl—vlate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protectn of the laws?
He qutned the way which Jtice Byron Whe, who thored the majory opn Bowers, had amed the central issue of the se—as whether the Constutn “nfers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage sodomy”—and asserted that Whe’s formulatn “disclos the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. A fair-md unrstandg of the basic nstutnal right of privacy, Kennedy clared, would take serly, gay as well as straight sexual relatns, the acpanyg tegry of the nnectn between sexual exprsn and pannate iendship and love. The liberty protected by the Constutn, Kennedy affirmed, allows homosexual as well as heterosexual persons the right to tablish a personal bond wh a pann, one element of which may be a sexual relatnship.
TWENTY YEARS AFTER A BREAKTHROUGH TEXAS SE LNCHED A NEW ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
A Hoton lawsu set a precent for the right to privacy for lbian, gay and bisexual people, but the transgenr muny has not secured the same eedoms. * texas gay rights case *
For those who argued that the Constutn mentns neher privacy nor the rights of gays, Kennedy rpond that the amers had not drafted the document specific terms bee they did not claim to know “the ponents of liberty s manifold possibili” but were themselv open—as the urt need to be—to new arguments and experienc.
TWENTY YEARS AFTER TEXAS SE LNCHED ERA OF GAY RIGHTS, TRANS PEOPLE ARE STILL THE FIGHT
The Court led favor of gay rights as early as 1958. But s cisns haven't always sid wh the LGBT muny. * texas gay rights case *
O’Connor ncurred the part of the opn that overturned the Texas statute, agreeg that discrimated agast gays, but she fend the right of a state to outlaw certa typ of timate acts, provid that applied the ban on a nondiscrimatory basis. He dismissed Kennedy’s historil analysis, which showed how attus toward gays had changed over the years, bee he nsired nstutnally irrelevant: a strict nstctn of the meang of the Constutn and the tent of s amers would make clear that laws prohibg abortn as well as sodomy were perfectly acceptable.
ACLU HISTORY: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: A WATERSHED FOR GAY RIGHTS
One law profsor at the time said “removed the reflexive assumptn of gay people’s ferry, ” layg the legal groundwork for same-sex marriage. The lg “gave lbian, bisexual and gay people back their digny, ” said Cala Taylor, a Lambda Legal attorney who started wh the legal advocy group 2003, jt time to watch her lleague, Pl Smh — a gay man himself — argue Lawrence before the Supreme Court. Ten years later, June 26 beme an even more important tone for gay rights when the high urt stck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
When Lawrence me down 15 years ago, Mark Phariss was h off an unsuccsful ph for an anti-discrimatn ordance to protect gay cy employe San Anton. That Republin learship asked the state’s hight urt to take up another high-stak gay rights se — out of Hoton, like Lawrence – that’s bee an emblem of the state’s ntug culture wars. “That almost sual dismissal of the rights of gay people was characteristic of Texas urts before Lawrence, and appears to be characteristic of Texas state urts now, ” said Dale Carpenter, a Southern Methodist Universy law profsor who wrote a book on the Lawrence lg.
Smh expects he’ll spend next ssn on the fense agast measur like that one, as well as a slate of “relig refal” bills, which allow dividuals claimg “scere relig beliefs” to ny certa servic or products to gay upl. A ban on gay sex remas on the Texas books the 20 years sce, advot have secured major victori and cemented key rights cludg marriage equaly, employment protectns and the abily to serve the ary — victori that likely would not have been achieved whout the foundatn of Lawrence v. Notably, transgenr people still face discrimatn and vlence at higher rat than their lbian, gay and bisexual recent years, as trans people have gaed visibily the public sphere, faiar anti-LGBTQ+ trop have emerged efforts to alienate this muny.
THE SUPREME COURT RULGS THAT HAVE SHAPED GAY RIGHTS AMERI
“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 polil climate which Lawrence and Garner were arrted for allegedly havg sex was not iendly to LGBTQ+ Hotonians, Lewis relled. 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. 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.
JOHN LAWRENCE, PLATIFF GAY RIGHTS CASE, DI AT 68
There were simply no protectns agast those forms of discrimatn, he, 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?
”Lawrence and Garner were released om jail the day after the 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.
JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU
The State nnot mean their existence or ntrol their sty by makg their private sexual nduct a crime, ” Jtice Anthony Kennedy wrote his majory 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. Yet the talyst for the gay rights movement, the 1969 Stonewall rts, were largely led by transgenr people of lor, a part of the LGBTQ+ muny that is still fightg for equal treatment.
Seia of TENT said Lawrence set a precent for the right to privacy for lbian, gay and bisexual people, but the transgenr muny has not secured the same eedoms and protectns to privately make health re cisns. “At a mimum, the laws are hangg on the wall like an uned whip, ” Carpenter the worst-se scenar, if the Supreme Court overturned Lawrence, nsensual gay sex uld aga be illegal Texas.
In 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 cisn validatg state laws that crimalized same-sex sexual activy, wh the liberal-leang majory at the time lg that vlated the due-procs se was sparked by the 1998 arrt of two gay men Hoton.