American society has always been marked by enhance attention towards moral questions, that is why the history of American legal system reflects unavoidably all tries at placing moral norms on record and fighting for division of right and moral. The Supreme Court of United States of America has always played a huge role in this controversial intention. It is possible to say that certain social factors sometimes caused the U.S. Supreme Court to make contradictive decisions which then were discussed and complained for many times.
In the middle of the XX century the struggle for civil rights campaign spread out in the United States. It reorganized the whole country and changed citizen’s attitude to many aspects of life. In a greater degree it proceeded under the slogans of privacy defence. Namely due to this campaign a lot of epochal decisions, such as Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade in 1973 became possible. However, there was a question which wasn’t discussed on the U.S. Supreme Court level but which became more and more pertinent from year to year – homosexualism, or as it was called in some juridical documents – sodomy. By the beginning of 1970s sodomy laws that criminalized homosexual relationships were adopted in all American states. In the face of extremely intolerant social attitude to homosexuality this topic wasn’t brought up for discussion. Nevertheless different human rights movements brought pressure to bear with the view of legal system liberalization which includes supreme instances.
The first attempt took place in 1986, it was “Bowers v. Hardwick” case. The Atlanta police officer Keith Torick was sent to Michael Hardwick’s apartment to serve a penalty warrant to the last. He showed up in his room, where observed Hardwick and another adult man engaged in consensual oral sex. Both men were arrested for sodomy which was prohibited by the law of Georgia State and carried a sentence of one to twenty years imprisonment. Michael Bowers, the attorney general of Georgia and the opponent of Hardwick insisted on the fact that the accused was an active homosexual so he was liable to suffer conviction for his activities (Bowers v. Hardwick, n.d.).
Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the U.S. Constitution “does not grant any fundamental rights to be engaged in homosexual sodomy” (Ball, 2003, p.47). Consequently this right should not be defended in a special way. In a decision, endorsed by five votes against four, there was said: “To confirm that the right for this kind of behaviour is deeply enrooted in national history and tradition and that it is initially established in freedom conception – it is ridiculously at best” (Bowers v. Hardwick, n.d.). More than that, the U.S. Supreme Court chairman U. Berger wrote in his concurring opinion that the prohibition of homosexuality has “deep roots” and to confirm that the right for homosexual intercourse is fundamental means to reject the millenniums of moralism.
The waves of Supreme Court cases might create the misimpression that police departments were eager to get homosexual behaviour out of public places where it might insult heterosexual bystanders. However, in fact, the police tried hard to catch, frighten and bring homosexuals low wherever they could find them. In this “gay-hunt” the main targets of the police were gay-bars, the places where homosexuals tried to escape the heterosexual pressure. In fact, an establishment that was supposed to be a “resort for sexual perverts”, as it was indicated in California law, could easily lose its liquor license (Murdoch, 2001, p.138). Gay bars were often considered to be the safest places for gays and lesbians, but in reality they were not. Even if an establishment didn’t position itself as a place for homosexuals, but had a bad reputation, it immediately became an object of policemen regard who started undercover investigating there passing themselves off as homosexuals. Even so harmless actions like a hug between two friends could lead to arrest. These police actions caused multiple protest actions. The most notorious one that led to mass disturbances took place in the town of Stonewall where homosexual adolescents mounted a stand against police authorities. It was the first time when LGBT-community (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transsexuals) struggled for their rights. These riots caused several protest actions in many towns all over United States.
It is necessary to say that in United States the notion of moral changed very quickly. The pressure of same-sex conduct legalization partisans was so high and breakneck that fifteen years after “Bowers v. Hardwick” case thirty-six states revoked sodomy laws. However, in several states, including Texas, they were still in force, not only on paper but in action too. The brightest example is the case of D. Lawrence who became a victim of Texas sodomy law. Later it was called “Lawrence v. Texas” case. On September 17, 1998, 60-year-old John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, age 36 were engaged in mutual consensual homosexual anal intercourse when they were spotted by the police officer Joseph Quinn. He was called by Lawrence’s homophobic neighbour Roger Nance who reported “a black male going crazy with a gun” at Lawrence’s apartment (Kennedy, 2003, p.21). According to Texas Penal Code, Chapter 21, Section 21.06, anal sex between two male persons was considered a crime (Ball, 2003, p.88).
Lawrence and Garner were arrested by Harris County sheriff, spent a night in a jail and were released on four hundred dollars bail the next morning. On November 20, 1998, Lawrence and Garner were found guilty of homosexual intercourse and imposed a two hundred dollars fine. Men filed a lawsuit in Harris County court of Sessions because in their opinion their fees the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees the protection of private homes from searches and seizures without a warrant and also violates the Bill of Rights which guarantees privacy protection either. However, the court didn’t satisfy their claim and imposed one hundred forty-two dollars court costs. Finally, they were taken under the protection of “Lambda Legal” organisation which practiced sexual minorities’ recourse. Together with their client they addressed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which also refused to give consideration to this case. That is how it was caught in U.S. Supreme Court. The judges had to answer three essential questions:
- “Whether the petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law – which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical by different-sex couples – violate the Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection of laws?
- Whether the petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in their home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
- Whether “Bowers v. Hardwick” should be overruled?” (Kennedy, 2003, p.83)
“Lambda Legal” lawyers involved a lot of experts (so called “amici curiae”) that presented their conclusions on this case.
The general verdict in the matter of “Lawrence v. Texas” case was delivered on June 26, 2003, after three months of consideration. It was a total revision of previous decision. The U.S. Supreme Court also mentioned that Bowers “was not right then and this decision is not right now”. In a new rendered verdict it was indicated that homosexuals do have constitutional safeguard of their private activity and moral disapproval does not justify Texas sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas, n.d.). In such a way “Lawrence v. Texas” became a revolving U.S. Supreme Court decision just like “Griswold v. Connecticut” and “Roe v. Wade” cases (Tribe, 2004, p.65). It initiated multiple law revisions not only in Texas but also in thirteen states where there were some criminal of another sanctions against homosexuals. The “Lawrence v. Texas” case has also become a justification for its use in different high-profile lawsuits. It caused ample debatable in mass-media and law sphere that had far-reaching consequences.
Summing up and having these two cases analysed it is possible to say that certain social factors sometimes caused the U.S. Supreme Court to make contradictive decisions which then were discussed and complained for many times. Social sentiments, attitude towards different aspects of life could have an influence on different court judgements and even provoke such serious consequences as judicial persecutions and discriminations. Mostly it takes a very long time and a lot of discussions and social disturbances to overwhelm this kind of decisions.
References
Ball, C. A. (2003). Positive in the Fundamental Right to Marry: Same-Sex Marriage in the Aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Atlanta, GA: Liberty Publishing House.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186. (n.d.). Web.
Kennedy, A. (2003). Lawrence v. Texas. Ann-Arbor, MI: Ardis Publishing.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558. (n.d.). Web.
Murdoch, J. (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tribe, L. H. (2004). Lawrence v. Texas: The” Fundamental Right” That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Harvard Law Review, 117, p. 65.