Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Gender, Sexuality and the Law (Loving v Vriginia (Equal Protection Clause…

- - - - Bowers v Hardwick
        
        Question - Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?
        
        The Federal Court of Appeals sided with the 'Queer' by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
        
        Supreme Court - Because other Courts of Appeals have arrived at judgments contrary to that of the Eleventh Circuit in this case, 3 we granted the Attorney General's petition for certiorari questioning the holding that the sodomy statute violates the fundamental rights of homosexuals. We agree with petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred, and hence reverse its judgment. 4
        
        Jibes of the SC against gay rights "Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious."
        
        The SC takes issue with interfering beyond its powers that is, the powers of the constitution
        
        Dissent - Important by Justice Stevens which would later be quotes in Lawrence case ---> individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process
        
        Dissent ---> Michael Hardwick's standing may rest in significant part on Georgia's apparent willingness to enforce against homosexuals a law it seems not to have any desire to enforce against heterosexuals
      - Lawrence v Texas
        
        Over Turns Bowers v Hardwick
        
        Speaks about dignity
        
        Consent, Dignity, Far reaching implications and a realignment of popular opinion
        
        Unlike in Bowers, the law in Texas discriminated specifically 'Homosexual' conduct
        
        Was cited in 377 case - Shri Ahmadi also referred to the dissenting opinion given by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in Lawrence v. Texas wherein it was stated that promotion of majoritarian sexual morality was a legitimate state interest. Shri Ahmadi stressed that Courts, by their very nature, should not undertake the task of legislating. He submitted that the Delhi High Court was not clear if it was severing the law, or reading it down. He argued that if the language of the section was plain, there was no possibility of severing or reading it down. He further argued that, irrespective of the Union Government’s stand, so long as the law stands on the statute book, there was a constitutional presumption in its favour.
        
        passage from the judgment of Field J. in Munn v. Illinois
        
        Attempted 1st Amendment was attempted
        
        Liberty