LAWRENCE VS TEXAS : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Lawrence Vs. Texas (2003) held that Texas Statute, which made homosexual act among consenting adults of same sex an offence, is unconstitutional.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In Houston, Texas , Officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapon disturbance. They entered in apartment where one of the Petitioner John Lawrence resided. They found Lawrence and another man Tyron Garner engaging in sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody and convicted by a Justice of Peace as Texas Penal Code provided that a person committed an offence if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of same sex. The Conviction was affirmed by Court of Appeal for Texas. The matter finally reached to the Supreme court.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court noted that Petitioners were adults and their act was private and consensual. Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit non-procreative sexual activity more generally. Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to be have been enforced against consenting adults in private. One purpose of prohibitions was to ensure that there would not be any lack of coverage if a predator committed a sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by the criminal law. American laws targeting the same sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century.
The Court observed that the Texas Statute makes homosexuals unequal in eyes of law by making particular conduct – and only that conduct – subject to criminal sanction. Conviction of Petitioners , if upheld, can disqualify them from or restrict their ability to engage in a variety of professions, including medicine, athletic training and interior design. Texas sodomy laws brand all homosexuals as criminals thereby making it difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else.
State of Texas argued that there is rational behind law as it promotes morality. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Supreme Court observed that moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate government interest under the equal protection clause because legal classifications must not be drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. Equal protection clause prevents a State from creating a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake.
The Supreme Court concluded that sodomy law of Texas banning “deviate sexual intercourse” between consenting adults of the same sex but not between consenting adults of different sexes are constitutional.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA
Justice Scalia wrote dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia was of the view that the Court has failed to establish that homosexual act is a Fundamental Right. Texas statute furthers the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable. Several other laws have been enacted on this premise and in existence.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
Supporters of gay rights celebrated the judgment of the Supreme Court. It was hoped that this will open the path of recognition of same sex marriage which was ultimately recognized by the Supreme Court in Obergefell Vs. Hodges.
________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.