Lawrence v. Texas Summary | quimbee.com
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2017
- An animated case brief of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Read the full text brief at www.quimbee.co...
A Texas statute made it a crime for two people of the same sex to engage in some types of intimate sexual conduct. Officers of the Harris County Police Department in Houston, Texas were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. Upon entering the apartment where Lawrence (defendant) resided, the officers observed Lawrence and another man, Garner (defendant), engaging in anal sex. The two men were arrested, held in custody overnight, charged, and convicted by a Justice of the Peace in the State of Texas (plaintiff). The defendants exercised the right to a new trial in Texas Criminal Court, which affirmed the convictions. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Anybody else writing a paper on this? lol
Girl give it to me please 😩😩😩😩
Looked this video up on my school chromebook and it got flagged for inappropriate subjects.........
He met plenty of homosexuals they just didn't say they were because they faced grave consequences at the time.
Actually, turns out on of his clerks was gay and he met his boyfriend. Also reporters have discovered he hired more gay clerks than any other justice on the supreme court.
And he later regretted his decision
Insane how homosexuality was still illegal in some states in the early 2000’s
An in Brazil we legalized homosexuality in 1830
@Giloubig Krigar - Religious Warrior Yeah. You could as well say: "Insane how slavery is still illegal in 2021." Just because something has always been so, it doesn't mean that it's right.
It has never been illegal in the Philippines homosexual conduct. Yet religious people use "public morality" in our law as alternative punishment for Filipino LGBT. Until the Supreme Court in 2011 ruled;
"The morality in law is PUBLIC and SECULAR, not religious. Therefore, the Philippines has not seen fit to criminalize homosexual conduct."
- Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC 2011
The Philippine Supreme Court also cited Lawrence v. Texas as additional reference to the said decision.
"(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."
Not insane, the opposite.
@@gjvnq and look how that's working for you, county of aids and stds
So in other words if this is reversed it would be illegal for heterosexual consenting adults to privately engage in sex? I’m confused
By homosexual adults does that mean only men?
@@sssalma98 nope anyone in the lgbt community I’m assuming
@@sssalma98 it really wasn't enforced except for sex in public
At the time the court made its decision, 10 states that had laws criminalizing consenting adult sodomy applied to both heterosexual and homosexual, only 4 states had it applied to homosexual only. So, in theory yes depending on the state if this ruling were to be reversed.
Shouldn’t this law be struck down because of separation of church and state? The constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Very informative videos, thank you! (: Could a video be done on Shelby County v. Holder?
In 2011 more states allowed sexual intercourse with a horse then allowed gay marriage.
so who won in this case?
Human rights and dignity. That's what has won.
Gays like me
@@jeremyjackson7429 no they are not. The court made that clear. Abortion is entirely different.
Who is the prosecution??
Who are the defendants in this case !?!
tyron garner and john lawrence v texas 2003
They are plaintiffs, not defendants.
This article explains the difference:
www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a-plaintiff-in-a-lawsuit-398411
Police is following every second. I need a lawyer
run jean run!
Great law
scalia wasn’t wrong
How so?
@@danroe0302 He was right that the decision would open the way to same-sex marriage. :-)
@@MikeRosoftJH Aaaah... I see. When you put it that way, Scalia definitely wasn't wrong. 😁
yea- it led to same sex marriage- the line from this case to Obergefell is pretty linear. that was my point.
@@jlf115 Thanks for clarifying.
This was a bad decision... Scalia was absolutely right in his dissent.
What was bad about it? But yes, he was right that the decision would lead to same-sex marriage.
@@MikeRosoftJH
It was not the courts job to determine laws which do not conflict with the constitution.
There is no right to have sex. There is a right for people to vote on which laws they believe in.
Laws change with the times. It is not the role of the court to determine which moral good they wish to uphold. It is there job to interpret the law.
Many of the interpretations of the 14th amendment are far too broad (including this one). Equal Protection cannot be applied to every statute, because not every statute involves rights.
In the same way that a minor cannot claim age of consent laws prevent them from gaining equal protectuon, or illegal immigrants cannot claim voting restrictions prevent their equal protection.
People decide which laws they wish to be governed by through democratic vote. Unelected justices should not determine the outcome of this.
I believe any law against gay sex is ridiculous. But that does not mean it is unconstitutional. Plenty of ridiculous laws have no Constitutional conflict.
There just isn't one in this case, or many of the cases since the activist era began. Hopefully, many of these cases will be overturned, and the power will be given back to the people so that they may govern themselves as the founders intended
@@maurygoldblat8982 Would you, then, claim that it wasn't unconstitutional for states to prohibit people of a different race from having sex together? Would you say that in the 'Loving v. Virginia' case the court has overstepped its authority, and that it should have been left up to states whether or not to have anti-miscegenation laws? (The laws used to prohibit both marriage and sex between people of a different race, under pain of imprisonment.)
The case did not just involve the right to have sex, but a more general right to privacy in the area of sex. For example, courts have struck down laws that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives ('Griswold v. Connecticut' and 'Eisenstadt v. Baird'). So likewise, the court has ruled that the state had no legitimate purpose in banning homosexuality - that "laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". As such, it ruled that the law violated the 'due process' clause of the 14th amendment.
@@MikeRosoftJH
I would say that yes... allnof those cases are a part of the activist era and should be overturned. Again... they were bad decisions because they had no legal grounds to rule in that manner.
What do you believe the limiting principle should be? Do you believe the court should overrule age of consent laws? They would be able to do so under the broad reading of the 14th amendment that you seem to support.
Just because you believe the decision was a good one does not mean it was the right/legal one.
@@maurygoldblat8982 Well, I guess that at least you're consistent. But to me, segregation laws - be it in public services, or in sex and marriage - obviously are discriminatory, and the courts have rightfully struck them down as contrary to the 14th amendment ('Brown v. Board of Education' and 'Loving v. Virginia', overturning the previous verdicts that had upheld the laws).
As for age of consent laws, they obviously do have a legitimate purpose (unlike the criminalization of homosexuality, or of race mixing); namely, to protect children from sexual abuse. Apples and oranges. (Except when the difference of age is very small, and it just so happens that one is above and the other below the age of consent. Punishing a 16 year old boy with imprisonment for having sex with a 14 year old girl can hardly be said to serve any purpose, except to enforce the law solely because the law says so. While this isn't responsible sexual behavior, it should be a case for social services, not criminal law. But such a case would have a better hope of overturning the verdict under 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause, rather than 'due process' or 'equal protection'.)
I do not believe that sex is a constitutional right, I believe that vasectomies and castration should be valid punishments for sexual crimes, however I do believe that two concerning adults should be able to have sex in their own homes or in a private place
You have no problem with incest too? As long as it's done in a private place between two consenting adults?
@@SuntzuMocro That's a stupid argument
@@shem269 it's a question not an argument.
@@SuntzuMocro It was a point you were trying to make
@@shem269 It's questioning the liberal secular "brave" philosophy. But it can't even endure simple questioning as you have proven.
If the law prohibited soddomy between same-sex and heterosexual couples would have been okay?
The laws of some states did prohibit both same-sex and different-sex sodomy; but the court decision invalidated all such laws. The court decided by six votes to three to reverse the conviction on the grounds that the Texas law was unconstitutional: five of the judges opined that the sodomy laws were unconstitutional as such under 'due process' clause of the 14th amendment; and the sixth relied on the 'equal protection' clause (because the law only outlawed homosexual sodomy), and believed that a law that prohibits both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy may be constitutional.
In all likelihood no. If you have the right to privacy that shields your sexual and reproductive decisions from the scrutiny of the government (Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) then the government has no business policing how two consenting adults choose to have sex.
No. Either way it is unconstitutional and it’s the government overstepping their boundaries to satisfy their religion, in my opinion.
All sorts of sexual conduct is already regulated by the state. There may be a general right to privacy that can be extrapolated from the Ninth Amendment, but not one so far-reaching that would protect sodomy, incest, bestiality, etc, as it was a commonly-accepted crime when these Amendments were ratified.
I think even if the Court views sodomy as a sort of silly crime today it does not follow that it is therefore unconstitutional to categorize it as such. If intimate sexual conduct can be regulated in some areas but not others, the Court is applying its constitutional principles inconsistently.
But the Texas law in particular could be struck down on equal protection grounds.
It would be better if we banned all sodomy, that would be smarter. Legslizing straight sodomy leads to legalizing gay sodomy