Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    Hi everybody,

    I read Lawrence v. Texas case several times, and commentaries published in several law reviews, but there is still something I still can not figure out for sure.

    Did the Court actually grant a right to dignity to homosexuals with regards to their sexual preferences ?

    Of course, Justice Kennedy uses the word "dignity" several times. But, it seems to me that this right to dignity is more linked to the fact that homoseuxals were treated as criminals under the Texas sodomy statute. Not to the fact that homosexuals are granted dignity with respect for their sexual preferences.

    I hope I've made myself clear.... My English is pretty bad. So, I apologize for any mistakes.

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    It speaks of the dignity of free persons; a dignity to which all people are entitled.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    In general, in reading legal cases, the legally binding effect of the case is derived from the narrowest reasonable reading of the case's holding.

    It's been awhile since I read Lawrence v. Texas. But if memory serves, the holding was best interpreted, in the context of the rule it applied as:

    The previously recognized right to privacy includes a right to private sexual activity between consenting adults of any sex.

    Read so narrowly, T v. L leaves open a lot of questions. There is no reason to construe T v. L as applying to commercial sexual activity, but a good faith (though losing) argument could be made to that effect (the court would distinguish T v. L's privacy issues from the public aspect of commercial sexual activty). After T v. L, does the state have the right to regulate adultery through its criminal or civil law system? Again, a good faith argument could be made that T v. L extends to protect adultery. What about sex between multiple partners. Can the state prohibit consensual sexual activity between three partners? Four? Five?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    Quote Quoting Baz744
    View Post
    In general, in reading legal cases, the legally binding effect of the case is derived from the narrowest reasonable reading of the case's holding.
    I don't fully understand this reasoning?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    I don't fully understand this reasoning?
    When you go to court to argue, you want to argue that the court you're arguing before is bound by some higher court's binding legal authority. The Supreme Court of Missouri might be persuaded by what Missouri's Western District Court of Appeals has to say, but it might not. It certainly isn't bound by it.

    By contrast, the Supreme Court of Missouri is bound by what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say. Once you've found a case expounding a point of law that binds the Supreme Court of Missouri, the next question is establishing precisely what is the binding legal effect of that case.

    Suppose there's a controversy over whether homosexuals have a Constitutional right to marry. Advocate A marches into court and says that Lawrence v. Texas established a "right to dignity" for homosexuals, which binds the State of Missouri to allow homosexuals to get married. Advocate B disagrees, and says the only binding legal effect of Lawrence v. Texas is to permit private sexual relations among consenting adults of any sex.

    Who is right? How does the Missouri Supreme Court resolve the dispute? Kennedy, after all, did use the phrase "right to dignity" quite a bit in the opinion. Maybe Lawrence v. Texas does require states to permit gay marriage along with homosexual intercourse.

    By convention, courts know that the binding legal effect of a case derives from the narrowest reasonable reading of the case's specific holding. There's often room for disagreement over what that holding is. And a skilled advocate will try to construe that holding as broadly as necessary to support his case. But the reality is, the only law from the case is what comes from that holding.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    US SC decisions are usually of a degree where there is no ambiguity in what is meant. Inferior Courts draw on other jurisdictions case law at times to decide issues, sure, I am not saying this is not true. Even one US Circuit Court of Appeals is not bound by another's decision, although according to the Rules of the US SC, this is one criteria to examine when granting certiorari, when Sister circuits conflict.

    On the issue of same sex marriage, the US SC has already decidied such bans by states do NOT offend the federal constitution.




    Oh, I might add though L v.T and Romer v. Evans are 2 cases proponents say can release an inferior court of the SC's Summary opinion I spoke of.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: The Legal Significance of Lawrence v. Texas

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    US SC decisions are usually of a degree where there is no ambiguity in what is meant. Inferior Courts draw on other jurisdictions case law at times to decide issues, sure, I am not saying this is not true. Even one US Circuit Court of Appeals is not bound by another's decision, although according to the Rules of the US SC, this is one criteria to examine when granting certiorari, when Sister circuits conflict.

    On the issue of same sex marriage, the US SC has already decidied such bans by states do NOT offend the federal constitution.




    Oh, I might add though L v.T and Romer v. Evans are 2 cases proponents say can release an inferior court of the SC's Summary opinion I spoke of.
    I understand all that. I was explaining the basics of how to construe a case for its legally binding effect, using L v. T and gay marriage as an example.

    Analytically, a case can be broken down into several component parts.

    1) Historical facts: what happened in the case that led to the lawsuit. In L v. T, Lawrence was arrested and charged for homosexual conduct. Lawrence claimed the Constitution barred his prosecution on several grounds.

    2) Procedural facts: understanding the procedural posture of a case is often important for understanding what the case really meant.

    3) Issue: what is the legal question presented by the case? This is usually framed in terms of a question, and the holding of the case is the answer to the question. In L v. T, the issue could be framed any number of ways. For our purposes, the best way to frame it is, "Does the Constitutional right to privacy encompass a right to private sexual conduct between consenting adults of any sex?"

    4) Holding: Yes. The Constitutional right to privacy encompasses a right to private sexual conduct between consenting adults of any sex.

    5) Rule: This is the general rule the court is applying. In this case, it is just that there is a general Constitutional right to privacy.

    6) Rationale: The reasons for the court's decision. While the holding of the case gives us the only legally binding effect of the case, the rationale of the case, along with any other important dicta, can tell us how the court is likely to decide future similar cases. The rationale of Lawrence tells me that it won't apply to commercial sexual relationships, but it's unclear whether it applies to the regulation of adulterous relationships. Commercial relationships are by nature public, because of their commercial aspect, whereas adulterous relationships retain a strong private aspect.

    7) Other Important Dicta: Sometimes the court says stuff that's important, even though it's not part of the rationale. In the Heller decision, for example, the court questioned the continuing validity of cases holding that the 2nd amendment was not incorporated against the states. This footnote no doubt invited the current case involving that exact issue which is now before the Court.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Minor in Possession: MIP in Lawrence, Kansas
    By kyleatworld368 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 08:02 AM
  2. Divorce: The Significance of Saving Emails
    By birdwillow in forum Divorce, Annulment and Separation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 03:06 PM
  3. Defamation: The Significance of Not Suing for 'Bodily Injury'
    By SaraAnne in forum Defamation, Slander And Libel
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-12-2007, 02:21 PM
  4. Significance of Zoning on Value
    By GoBears in forum Buying, Selling and Conveying Real Estate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 08:27 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2004, 12:57 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources