In Bowers v. Hardwick, Hardwick, a male adult, was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his own home. Hardwick brought suit in the Federal District Court, challenging the consti

For example, in Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights.

In arguing his case, Hardwick cited as support a case in which the Court had held that the First Amendment prevented conviction for possessing and reading obscene material in the privacy of one's home. The Court did not equate the right to read pornographic material in one's home with the right of homosexual men to engage in consensual sexual acts in their own home. Consequently, the Georgia statute was upheld. In Lawrence v. Texas, responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, the Houston police entered Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The Court applied the ruling of Bowers to the case, considering many different points. The Court held that the Bowers decision was incorrect, and ruled that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violated the Due Process Clause.

Although religious groups have criticized the last ruling, the decision has positively affected the laws of today. For example, homosexuals should have the same rights to engage in sexual acts as heterosexuals and married couples do. Equal protection extends to all people similarly situated, therefore, gays should not be treated differently than other people. Lawrence has positively shaped the current laws, for the Court's decision has shed light on why the ruling in Bowers was incorrect, and as a result has given more people rights that they truly deserve. As long as the sexual acts are between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, there should be no disparities based on their sexual preference, and these acts should not be criminalized. Future laws based on this holding can only positively protect all people, regardless of their private sex lives. Finally, the rulings of these two important cases have no doubt assisted in shaping the laws of today.

In its opinion in Lawrence, the C

Some common words found in the essay are:
Bowers Lawrence, Utah Virginia, Court American, Lawrence Texas, Federal Constitution, Anthony Kennedy, Clause Court, Supreme Court, Griswold Court, Process Clause, due process, sexual conduct, current laws, due process clause, process clause, texas statute, georgia statute, court stated, court held, sodomy laws, liberty due, liberty due process, intimate sexual conduct, exercise liberty due, engage private conduct,
Approximate Word count = 1983
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)