|
mnottertail -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/12/2013 10:35:01 AM)
|
I assume you mean Lawrence v Texas.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html
We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1044 (2002), to consider
three questions:
1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law-which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples-violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
2. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, supra, should be overruled? See Pet. for Cert. i.
I could go on, but you are wholly misinformed at the outset, unless you are thinking of some other Lawrence, for which I will recieve a link to the SCOTUS case.
And here is a bit of obiter dicta from the decision:
The opinions in Griswold and Eisenstadt were part of the background for the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). As is well known, the case involved a challenge to the Texas law prohibiting abortions, but the laws of other States were affected as well. Although the Court held the woman's rights were not absolute, her right to elect an abortion did have real and substantial protection as an exercise of her liberty under the Due Process Clause. The Court cited cases that protect spatial freedom and cases that go well beyond it. Roe recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed once more that the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.
|
|
|
|
