Supreme court gays do not have right to privacy
Striking Down Texas Rule Against Same-Sex "Sodomy," Supreme Court Rights Egregious Wrong of 17 Years, Signaling New Era for Gay Rights
Affiliate: ACLU of Texas
June 26, 2003 12:00 am
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON - In an historic decision with wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a Texas law that makes some kinds of sexual connection a crime, but only for male lover people. The choice overrules the court's 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was widely condemned for treating gay people as second-class citizens. It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a major milestone in the combat for constitutional rights.
""This decision will alter virtually every significant legal and social question involving lesbians and gay men,"" said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU's Woman loving woman and Gay Rights Project. ""For years, whenever we acquire sought equality, we've been answered both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion with the claim that we are not entitled to equality because our affection makes us criminals. That argument - which has been a serious block to progress -- is now a dead letter."" Esseks added The beginning of the 21st century witnessed great progress for and immense pushback against LGBTQ rights. Conservative movements seek to recriminalize LGBTQ people in the form of anti-trans bathroom laws, bans on gender-affirming care, anti-gay curriculum laws and guide bans, criminalization of drag performances, banning trans people from sports and the military, and litigation to obtain a Constitutional right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in his concurrence to Dobbs, even same-sex marriage in the U.S.- only assured since 2015- is now in doubt. Trump ran on an agenda of scapegoating trans people. In his first weeks in office, he delivered on his promises, signing multiple executive orders to roll back the legal protections achieved in the last 50 years. We demand a new legal approach. The recent progress made by LGBTQ+ movements was due in no small part to efforts to secure privacy rights in rule. There are, however, significant pitfalls to relying upon privacy rights as a means of ensuring rights and freedom for Queer and other sexually minoritized groups. To achieve erotic justice in law, we will need to relocate be The early 1990s saw a major spread of the Council of Europe membership due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. In 1989, for example, there were 22 member states whereas by 2010 this had risen to 47. To connect the Council of Europe, new member-states must undertake certain commitments, including conforming their criminal laws to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As we know from the situation in Northern Ireland described in Dudgeon above, the ECHR right to privacy prohibits the criminalisation of same-sex activity. By the time candidate states from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc applied for membership of the Council of Europe, it was a condition of their accession to decriminalise. By way of example, the following countries decriminalised at or around the time they joined: Lithuania (joined the Council of Europe in 1993; decriminalised in 1993), Estonia (1993; 1992), Romania (1993; 1996), Serbia (2003; 1994), Ukraine (1995; 1991), Albania (1995; 1995), Latvia (1995; 1992), Macedonia FYROM (1995; 1996), Moldova (1995; 1995), Russia (1996; 1993), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002; 1998-2001), Georgia (1999; 200 Gauri: Hello everyone, Welcome to SCO Explains! I’m Gauri, Spandana: and I’m Spandana Gauri: and today’s video traces the remarkable evolution of lgbtq+ persons’ right to marriage in India. Spandana: We kickoff our “Court in Review” with a case from over a decade ago, where the Supreme Court found the criminalisation of consensual homosexual intercourse as constitutional. We then route out how the Court’s jurisprudence evolved to recognise the rights of LGBTQI+ persons. Gauri: Across 5 cases we look at how personal liberty, dignity and expression has evolved for the queer community. Let’s dive in! Our story begins with one provision of the Indian Penal Code—Section 377. This provision criminalised “unnatural offences”. What were these unnatural offences? “Carnal intercourse against the instruction of nature with any man, woman or animal”. The law always viewed consensual intercourse between same-sex persons to come under this scope. In 2009, the Delhi High Court turned this view around. It held that Section 377 ‘cannot’ be used to punish consensual sex between two adults, as it violates the righ The Supreme Court of India has issued a dominant, and potentially transformative, verdict on the right to privacy. In a landmark unanimous ruling, the nine-judge bench initiate that the right to individual privacy is an “intrinsic” and fundamental right under the country’s constitution. The decree potentially has ramifications for the continued criminalisation of same-sex sexual conduct under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The ruling states: “That “a miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders” (as observed in the decision of this Court) is not a sustainable basis to deny the right to privacy. The purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to insulate their apply from the disdain of majorities, whether legislative or popular. The guarantee of constitutional rights does not depend upon their apply being favourably regarded by majoritarian opinion. The try of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection. Discrete and insular minorities face grave dangers of discrimination
Supreme Court Cases on the rights of LGBTQIA+ Persons