About the case
In 1998, John Lawrence aged 55 years was arrested in his apartment in Houston after being caught in a homosexual act with Tyron Garner aged 31. Sources claim that police officers who were responding to a call by Eubank arrested the two. Eubank while under the influence of alcohol, called the police to report that an armed black was going nuts in Lawrence’s residence. It should be known that Eubank and Lawrence have been friends for over 20 years, however, he was furious and jealous after realizing that his other sex partner –Garner- was flirting with Lawrence and was intending to spend the night with him (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).
On arrival at the Lawrence’s dwelling, the Huston police officers paced into his apartment found Lawrence with another aged man – Tyron Garner – engaging in oral sex in the bedroom. Lawrence tried to challenge the officers from entering his home without being warranted, however, his efforts were in vain (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). The two were arrested and charged with deviate sexual act which violated the law of the land. In Texas, homosexuality was a forbidden practice. According to the Homosexual Conduct law also termed as the anti-sodomy statute, such actions were deemed as a Class C punishable crime should an individual be found guilty. Chapter 21 of the statute section 21.06 of the laws of Texas had been used in 1973 following the amendment that the state made to its criminal code to stop the prohibition of the heterosexual anal and oral sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, the puzzling questions in this matter were that, does the arrest of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner in accordance to the "Homosexual Conduct" regulation of Texas that prohibits anal and oral sex on same-sex individuals and permits the same acts on different-sex persons, against the Fourteenth Amendment? Put in mind that the fourteen Amendments guaranteed equal protection of the laws. Does their arrest for sexual intercourse at their apartment violate their essential right to liberty and privacy, which is guarded by the Due Process Clause that is found in the Fourteenth Amendment? Does it mean the case for Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be nullified?
Judgment from the court
Following a series of brainstorming, Justice Antony M. Kennedy provided the opinion of the court on the matter. According to the verdict, the Court established that the Texas statute, which criminalized similar sexed persons who engage in particular intimate sexual actions, was against the Due Process Clause (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). The court went ahead to explain the events that rendered Bowers case doubtful. Afterward, the Court concluded that Lawrence and Garner had the freedom as adults to practice any sexual act whatsoever in their attempt to exercise their freedom, which is advocated for under the Due Process Clause. Justice Kennedy went ahead to explain that, the Due Process Clause warranted Garner and Lawrence the overwhelming liberty to engage in any sexual conduct whatsoever without interference from the government. In this respect, the court nullified Bowers petition (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
From a personal perspective, the decision that was reached at by the court was genuine and noble. Adults have the liberty to engage in any form of sexual activities as long as they do not forcefully influence those people around them, particularly the adolescent group. In the Lawrence’s case, for instance, all the individuals involved were all adults implying that they were all aware of the implications of their acts. The case would have been different if it had been involving an adult and a minor. That would have taken the case to a different dimension that would lead to the conviction of the adult. Freedom is sweet; however, it has to have limits.
References
Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558. (2003). Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District . Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html
