Bowers Vs Hardwick Case Study

I. Bowers v. Hardwick
II. Citations 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

III. Facts:
Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while conducting in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another man at his home. Hardwick was arrested and charged with violating the Georgia statute of committing sodomy in the bedroom of his home. The district attorney, Lewis Slaton decided not to prosecute Hardwick or his partner, but Hardwick filed suit in the federal district court against the police and Georgia’s attorney general, Michael Bowers, holding that the Georgia statute of antisodomy placed him in danger of arrest but more importantly violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the suit in favor of Bowers. Hardwick appealed
Legal Issues
Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right to engage in consensual, homosexual sodomy which invalidates the law that many states deemed illegal?
V. Court decision
In a 5-4 decision declared by Justice Byron White held that Individuals are not protected by the constitution for sodomy and such practices could be outlawed by states. Justice Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O’Connor supported the majority with Byron White while Justice Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens dissented.
VI. Opinion and Reasoning of The Court (by Justice White)
The majority opinion and verdict of the court was delivered by Associate Justice Byron White.
White referred to 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut case and that the court held that a right to privacy was implicit in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, he explained that this right did not extend to private, consensual, homosexual sex. He detailed that nowhere in the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendment suggested that homosexual sodomy is supported. Byron framed the question does the Constitution confers “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy”. The answer to this question is that “to claim that a right to engage practice is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is best facetious.” This ruling reversed the 11th Circuit’s decision, declaring that antisodomy law was
I understand where the majority is coming from bashing on how immoral homosexual sodomy is. I do not think it’s worse than rape since the homosexual activity was consensual whereas rape is not. I think the crux of the issue was the fact that the case was over the homosexual sodomy. If it was over heterosexual sexual conduct, the case would have never made it to the supreme court. Like how Justice Blackmun said the majority opinion refused to recognize that any individual has the right to control the nature of an intimate relationship with others. Be it a homosexual or heterosexual relationship an individual should have the fundamental right to choose the nature of an intimate relationship. Now we are more accepting of a homosexual relationship as a society since it’s more prevalent nowadays, I think we shouldn’t be critical towards the gays because it’s their choice to choose their sexual orientation. If they are gay a one point in life does not mean they will stay that way forever and the same goes for people with other orientations. The good news is this case is reversed in 2003 with the Lawrence v. Texas