Gay rights have always faced an uphill battle in a country like America, one founded with Puritanical ideals rife with sexual repression. Viewed as sexual deviants and detrimental to society, the LGBT community has fought discrimination long before the acronym for the gay community ever even existed. The public fight for sexual equality goes all the way back to the 1920s, when “The Society for Human Rights in Chicago [became] the country's earliest known gay rights organization” (Infoplease 2013). The Stonewall Riots of 1969 sparked a national fire, depicting for the first time gays quite literally fighting for their right to exist. Then the 70s came, with Harvey Milk first failing in a campaign to become San Francisco’s city supervisor, only to later be appointed to the Board of Permit Appeals, making Milk “the first openly gay city commissioner in the United States.” Milk was assassinated in 1978, but not before serving a vital role in blocking Proposition 6, a proposal that would “fire any teacher or school employee who publicly supports gay rights.” Throughout this rich and varied history of gay civil rights, one important piece of the American government has been missing: the United States Supreme Court. It was not until 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that the Court stepped into the ring. Unfortunately the nine Justices entered the foray on the wrong side of history, supporting the legality of anti-sodomy laws and sending a clear message to the public that the gay community would find no friends on the court. That is, until 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, where the Supreme Court acted with a dynamic court view by overruling Bowers v. Hardwick and striking down decades of anti-sodomy law.
The Supreme Court first ruled on the issue ...
... middle of paper ...
...ovember 2013. .
LAWRENCE AND GARNER v. TEXAS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 21 November 2013. .
Denniston, Lyle. “Is the ‘Rule of Four’ Fully Intact?” Yale Law School Panel Discussion (2009).
Stoddard, Thomas B. “Bowers v. Hardwick: Precedent by Personal Predilection.” The University of Chicago Law Review , Vol. 54, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 648-656
"LAWRENCE V. TEXAS." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, 26 June 2003. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
Perlin, Adams A. “Impeachment of Samuel Chase: Redefining Judicial Independence, The.” Rutgers Law Review. Vol. 62, p. 726.
"Congress Profiles." History.house.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.
Dahl, Robert A. “The Supreme Court’s Role in Policy-Making”. Journal of Public Law, Vol. 6. 1967.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
Schenck v. United States (1919). The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380reading/schenck pamphlet.html
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
...son, Chief Justice Wallace B. The State of the Judiciary in Texas. Austin, 20 February 2007.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Wallace v. Jaffree. United States Supreme Court. 4 June 1985. Find Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
Thomas, Justice Clarance (2013) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. No. 11-345. U.S. Supreame Court. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law. Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012