Supreme Court Case: Bowers V. Hardwick (1986)

Opinion: I believe with the ruling. I am on the same page with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. I agree 100% with his writing for the court, which stated that family-owned companies like Hobby Lobby should not be enforced to recompense for insurance coverage for contraception for workers over their religious oppositions. I believe that this ruling is accurate because it means that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is efficient and does what it says that it does. With a lot of things going on in the land and not very many laws being enforced , it was good to see that this one was applied correctly to the case. I agree with Justice Alito when he writes that there are other means that the government could guarantee that women will have admission to the four contraceptives which were a problem in the case in court. In fact, Justice Alito transcribes, the system the government arranged to permit workers of religious nonprofit administrations to get some access to these contraceptives would serve the world of for-profit companies also. Going forward it also sends a message to other corporations that might be going through a similar

Also in the recent case of The United State Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love. In the majority opinion, the justices outlined that gay Americans have a right to "intimate association" beyond merely freedom from

Homosexuality and homosexual individuals have been identified - or socially invented - in Brazilian society since the nineteenth century. Until then, emotional and sexual relations between people of the same sex were considered sodomy, shameful behaviour anyone could surrender to. As of the second half of the nineteenth century, homosexual practice began to define a special class of individuals, and consequently a new social category, which was marked, stigmatized and known under the name of homosexual, and considered a deviation from the standard. The individuals who fit, or were forced to fit, into this category began to live in secrecy, guided by fear and forced to bear the pains of social segregation. (Foucault, 1988; Silva, 2006; Trevisan, 2000).

The Supreme Court’s ruling creates a questions based on religious freedoms: Is it legal for business owners, with objections to same-sex marriage, to refuse wedding goods and services to a same-sex

After nearly one-hundred and fifty years of living in the New World, the colonists were anxious to be separated from their mothering country, England. Thomas Jefferson and other colonists got together to write an official document called the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776 to send to King George III. This document stated how the colonists were being treated unjustly and how independence should be granted to the citizens. The Declaration of Independence promises natural rights for all men, however, some rights such as suffrage, are not realized for some disenfranchised groups.

The future of same-sex marriage has long been a question in the United States; on June 26, 2015, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the country finally got an answer. In a five to four decision, the Supreme court determined that under the Fourteenth Amendment, marriage between same- sex couples is legal in all fifty states. Under this decision, states that had previously banned same-sex marriage will have to recognize and permit same-sex marriage within their boundaries. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark decision that will not affect same-sex couples throughout the nation, but also every aspect of our society. Having been hired by a sociologist who wants to study the effect of

In 1958, it was illegal for an interracial couple to get married in the state of Virginia. In the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, Mildred Jeter, an African-Indian woman, and Richard Loving, a white man married in Washington DC due to the miscegenation law in Virginia. They later returned to their home state where the police charged them with the violation of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law. The Loving’s were later approached by a lawyer who wanted to sue the state of Virginia for violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. By marrying and returning to Virginia, Mildred and Richard were breaking Virginia law, but they loved each other and knew they had to be together. Their marriage expanded the Equal Protection clause to include interracial marriage. The Loving v Virginia case not only strengthened Civil Rights, it also eventually served as a platform for the argument for same-sex marriage. In the article How the 'Loving' Case Changed the US, it states, “The Loving case has been repeatedly cited by supporters of gay marriage as one of the most substantive legal arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage in America.” The Loving’s own version of civil disobedience stretched farther than interracial couples and it has only made the US more tolerant and

In September 1998, a same-sex couple in Houston, Texas were arrested in their own apartment after police found them engaging in a consensual, intimate, sexual act. The two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were convicted of violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” Law, which made it a Class-C misdemeanor for same-sex adults to engage in sexual intercourse and considered it illegal sodonomy. The statute was created in 1973 after the state changed its criminal code to end the banning of heterosexual anal or oral sex. The sheriff deputies arrested and charged the couple for performing “deviate sexual intercourse” as listed in the mentioned in the Texas statute. John Lawrence and Tyler Garner

Michael M. vs Superior Court is the case that brought gender-neutrality in the criminal justice system to the light. Before this case was presented to the court, few states had adopted a gender-neutral statutory rape case and California, where the case took place, was not among them. The defense argued that California’s rape laws went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then there was case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a former schoolteacher that was engaging in a sexual relationship with her 12 year old student. Letourneau was sentenced to 6 moths in jail while Michael M. received 10 years. It’s split into two sides when it comes to the topic of statutory rape and the equality of those involved. Some see it as almost coddling

The resolution for this case could be found depending on whether the petitioners, as free adults are allowed to engage in sexual conduct, exercising their liberty under the Due Process Clause. By this, the court deemed it necessary to reconsider the Bowers holding. The case’s initial statement was, “The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy… ,” 478 U.S., at 190 - informs on the Court’s failure to acknowledge the expanse of the liberty at stake. The laws in the Bowers case sought to control a person’s relationship, whether it would be formally

This situation creates concern in that it brings up questions about how this case was handled by the State of Virginia and the Supreme Court of Appeals. Were Virginia anti-miscegenation laws constitutional? Did these laws indeed violate the Fourteenth Amendment? When the Lovings’s case reached the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Court supported the anti-miscegenation statutes and thus confirmed the convictions. This raises the question whether or not if the Supreme Court of Appeals violated the 14th Amendment too?

Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, applying to same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples. This case was brought forward by numerous groups of same-sex couples who were suing their relevant state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ same-sex marriage laws. The Supreme Court found that there is no difference between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages, therefore, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause. This is policy making because the Supreme Court forced states to change their laws by deciding that it was against the constitution to not only ban the recognition of same-sex marriages that occurred in states that allowed it, but also making same-sex marriage legal in all states. Government officials even those who do not believe in the law change must abide by it, by allowing same-sex couples their now legal right to be married and receive the benefits that opposite-sex married couples receive; changing the way that citizens and the government interact in societal ways but also financial

Supreme Court ruling made it clear that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals have the same rights

The first state to decriminalize homosexuality was Illinois in 1961. The last states to decriminalize homosexuality were Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and

Lacking precise definition, Section 377 became subject to varied judicial interpretation over the years. Though ostensibly applicable to heterosexuals and homosexuals, Section 377 acted as a complete prohibition on the penetrative sexual acts engaged in by homosexual men, thereby criminalising their sexual expression and identity. Besides, the society too identified the proscribed acts with the homosexual men, and the criminalization had a severe impact on their dignity and self-worth. After the supreme courts verdict against the gay rights, it has given rise to a rage among the public. Personally I am against the verdict of the Supreme Court. One simply cannot announce a person criminal because of his sexuality. Being in a democratic nation a person should be allowed to decide upon his sexuality. One can simply cannot disown someone based upon his or her sexuality. Laws are made for the society not against the society. Nobody chooses to be a homosexual. Why would someone choose an identity, which lead them to be disparaged from the society and rejected by their families. Being gay is not a choice, it is something which just occurs to them. Even if being a homosexual is a choice it should not matter because it is an independent choice and you cannot tell a person whom to