#lawrence v. texas | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kaleidoscope-vol2 · 2 years

Text

Fascism, baby.

#scotus #supreme court #roe v wade #dobbs #griswold #obergefell v. hodges #lawrence v. texas #griswold v connecticut #birth control #same sex marriage #lgbtq #contraception #abortion

3K notes · View notes

dailyhistoryposts · 2 years

Text

On This Day In History

June 26th, 2003: The Supreme Court of the United States rules in Lawrence v. Texas that gender-based anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, based on the same "right to privacy" that Roe v. Wade helped to establish. It is a 6-3 ruling.

June 26th, 2013: The Supreme Court of the Unites States rules in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, based on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is a 5-4 ruling.

June 26th, 2015: The Supreme Court of the United States rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to legally recognized marriages must be extended to same-sex couples, based on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a 5-4 ruling.

#history #gay history #queer history #politics #supreme court #Lawrence v. Texas #sodomy #United States v. Windsor #gay marriage #gay rights #Obergefell v. Hodges #civil partnerships

1K notes · View notes

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

1K notes · View notes

gwydionmisha · 9 months

Text

Our movement must be intersectional. we must all have each other's backs. Leave no one's rights behind.

#Stonewall Uprising #Lawrence v. Texas #LGBTQIA+ Rights #Anti-LGBTQIA+ Discrimination #News

74 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 6 months

Text

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has a history of harsh anti-gay language from his time as an attorney for a socially conservative legal group in the mid-2000s.

In editorials that ran in his local Shreveport, Louisiana, paper, The Times, Johnson called homosexuality a “inherently unnatural” and “dangerous lifestyle” that would lead to legalized pedophilia and possibly even destroy “the entire democratic system.”

And, in another editorial, he wrote, “Your race, creed, and sex are what you are, while homosexuality and cross-dressing are things you do,” he wrote. “This is a free country, but we don’t give special protections for every person’s bizarre choices.”

At the time, Johnson was an attorney and spokesman for Alliance Defense Fund, known today as Alliance Defending Freedom, where he also authored his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas – which overturned state laws that criminalized homosexual activity between consenting adults.

ADF wrote an amicus brief in the case which supported maintaining criminalization.

“States have many legitimate grounds to proscribe same-sex deviate sexual intercourse,” Johnson wrote in a July 2003 op-ed, calling it a public health concern.

“By closing these bedroom doors, they have opened a Pandora’s box,” he added.

Now, Johnson is the Speaker of the House at a time when a majority of Americans are strongly supportive of gay rights.

In the House Republican Conference’s voting for their speaker nominee, Tom Emmer, who initially beat out Johnson, came under fire from conservatives for voting to codify same-sex marriage in 2022.

Johnson, according to Punchbowl News, reportedly made an issue of Emmer’s vote. Johnson voted against the bill. In 2022, Johnson also introduced a bill that some describe as a national version of what critics have called Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

In the mid-2000s, Johnson’s anti-gay rhetoric was harsh. In September 2004, Johnson wrote in support of a Louisiana amendment banning same-sex marriage saying it could lead to people marrying their pets.

“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”

Johnson added that allowing same-sex marriage could be the downfall of the democratic system.

“The state and its citizens have a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the marital union by making opposite-sex marriage the exclusive form of family relationship endorsed by the government,” he wrote. “Loss of this status will de-emphasize the importance of traditional marriage to society, weaken it, and place our entire democratic system in jeopardy by eroding its foundation.”

In another 2004 column, Johnson again predicted same-sex marriage could doom America.

“If you were shocked by the moral lapses at the Super Bowl you ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” Johnson wrote. “Experts project that homosexual marriage is the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.”

#us politics #news #cnn #cnn politics #2023 #speaker of the house #rep. mike johnson #louisiana #Alliance Defense Fund #Alliance Defending Freedom #Lawrence v. Texas #Republican homophobia #republicans #conservatives #alt right #Punchbowl News #lgbtqia+ rights #lgbtqia+

8 notes · View notes

violetbumblebea · 2 years

Text

So, I've seen this comic all over my feed

People are saying stuff like "Yay! Look at Damian support the community" and "Damian says support gay rights!".

That is not what this panel shows.

This panel is Damian showing off his weapons that he intends to use to break up pride (which he assumes is a riot like Stonewall) and Kon saying "Pride isn't a protest, it's a party!"

Is this fiction? Yes but the views expressed by our heros reflects the views of the author and society at large.

The views shown in this are: Disruptive demonstration and protest is bad. The LGBTQ+ community doesn't need to fight for rights.

In an era where trans rights are being trampled on and gay marriage is still being threatened, this complacency is dangerous.

In the last few years, there has been legislation that makes parent with trans kids child abusers (Texas) and legislation where even speaking about being gay/helping gay youth isn't allowed(Don't Say Gay Bill). With the overturning of Roe v Wade, other rights, like the right to gay marriage are threatens (as both a protected under Privacy Laws and one being overturned can hurt them all). This isn't even to mention social repercussions and stigma around being part of the community. Trans people (especially black trans people) are still being killed at high rates. Gay people are still hate-crimed and protested against. Hell, I live in the Midwest and I'm still closeted to my family and community because of bigotry.

Being part of the community is still dangerous. Pride may be a celebration of our queerness but it also remains a protest, a way for us to say "We're here and we're queer and your bigotry ain't getting rid of us!"

The opinions of our heroes shows us the attitude of our society and, while our society seems to think our fight should be over, we know that we still have a long way to go.

76 notes · View notes

shrimpmandan · 2 years

Text

They're not stopping at abortion, by the way.

This is what y'all wanted, right?

#abortion debate #tw abortion #gay marriage #lgbt rights #roe v wade #pro choice #abortion discourse #contraception #obergefell v. hodges #griswold v. connecticut #lawrence v. texas #politics

56 notes · View notes

yessoupy · 2 years

Text

please reblog.

a friend from my volunteer life messaged me to say she's moving back to texas and asked what advocacy groups she should join. this is what i told her:

if your precinct is vacant, become the precinct chair for your county democratic party.

begin attending meetings of the local democratic club.

these are political problems that require political action. precinct chairs are the officials who get out the democratic vote. that is NECESSARY for slowing this roll of fascism. IS THAT ALL WE NEED TO DO? NO. But that is the bare minimum.

Don't feel like a Democrat? Well, neither do I. But I sure as fuck am not a Republican. That party is trending further and further to the extreme right. As a result, it is leaving people behind. In a two-party system, if you are not a Republican, you should be voting for the Democrats. The Democratic Party is increasing in the breadth of people who belong to it simply because of how many people look at the Republicans today and said, "I didn't sign up for this shit." THIS WILL CAUSE IDEOLOGICAL CLASHES WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. No candidate for any race is going to be perfect.

Do not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when "good" is simply "not a fascist."

I am BEGGING you -- take this advice! I have taught the destruction of the Weimar Republic too many times to sit here and complain about a candidate not being progressive enough for my vote and/or dollar donation. I am not asking you to do anything I am not already doing.

You have learned about awful historical events and thought to yourself, "I wonder what I would have done." You know the answer now. DO IT.

#roe v. wade #abortion #griswold v. connecticut #birth control #lawrence v. texas #obergefell v. hodges #gay marriage #pro-choice #democrats

20 notes · View notes

actually-a-dyke · 2 years

Text

Tyrone Garner(left) and John Geddes Lawrence Jr(right) celebrating after winning the Lawrence vs. Texas case, the case that ruled that Sodomy Laws are unconstitutional.

#gay #lgbtq #queer #lgbt #lgbt history #lgbt pride #lgbtqplus #queer history #queer community #gay history #lgbtq history #lgbt rights #lgbtlove #queer stuff #gay interest #gayman #gay men #lawrence v. texas #early 2000s

9 notes · View notes

house-of-crows · 2 years

Text

Look- We've been here before. In this spot, with our rights being stripped from us our health ignored our needs unmet. We have been faced with State level violence for daring to protest their interference in our homes and our beds.

IF I DIE DELIVER MY BODY TO THE SUPREME COURT

IT IS THEIR FUCKING FAULT

#SCOTUS #roe v wade #lawrence v. texas #corona #pandemic

16 notes · View notes

polirambles · 2 years

Text

we said they’re coming after gay rights

they said we were crazy

here it is in plain text.

the supreme court is opening the door to make it illegal to be gay again

this is unacceptable

#lawrence v. texas #obergefell v. hodges #scotus #the supreme court #fuck scotus #fuck the supreme court #fuck the gop #gay rights #lgbtq #pride #gay

11 notes · View notes

afragmentcastadrift · 2 years

Link

#texas #ken paxton #douchebaggery #Lawrence v. Texas #sodomy laws #lgbtqia #fight vote resist

9 notes · View notes

vespertinecat · 2 years

Text

These Christo-fascist folks in power taking away our rights and gradually sending us back centuries towards a darker era really don't seem to remember what people used to do when they were upset with their leaders back then, do they?

9 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week seemingly expressed support for the Supreme Court potentially overturning past rulings on cases involving the LGBTQ community following the downfall of Roe v. Wade on Friday.

In a separate concurring opinion Friday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned a number of the high court's past rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right of same-sex couples to marry, and Lawrence vs. Texas—a 2003 decision in which the Court ruled against the state of Texas regarding a 1973 law criminalizing the act of sodomy.

Thomas also mentioned Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception without government interference. "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,'" Thomas wrote. "We have a duty to 'correct the error' regarding these established in those precedents."

During a Friday appearance on News Nation's "On Balance with Leland Vittert," Paxton said he would support the Supreme Court revisiting the cases mentioned by Thomas and defend Texas' long-unenforced law against sodomy.

"I'm sure you read Justice Thomas's concurrence where he said there were a number of other of these issues, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell he felt needs to be looked at again," Vittert told Paxton. "Obviously the Lawrence case came from Texas... would you as Attorney General be comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy? That questioned Lawrence again or Griswold or gay marriage? That came from the state legislature to put to the test what Justice Thomas said?"

"Yeah, I mean there's all kinds of issues here, but certainly the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don't think there's any constitutional provision dealing with," Paxton responded. "They were legislative issues and this is one of those issues and there may be more. So it would depend on the issue and dependent on what state law had said at the time."

youtube

Vittert pressed on, asking, "For the sake of time here, you wouldn't rule out that if the state legislature passed the same law that Lawrence overturned on sodomy, you wouldn't have any problem then defending that and taking that case back to the Supreme Court?"

Paxton responded: "Yeah, look my job is to defend state law and I'll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I'm certainly willing and able to do that."

13 notes · View notes

vex-verlain · 2 years

Text

An unsent letter to one of the partners at my office.

Dear _____,

Please have your Focus on the Family mail forwarded to your home address.

I had asked the senior partner to address this with you, but he didn't understand what I was talking about. (It must be nice not to understand. I wish I had the privilege.)

I have been retrieving the mail here for the past 11 years.

I have known what Focus on the Family was since I was 12.

Us gays are a hardy bunch. We understand death and silence and terror. And so I sorted your mail and I let it go because homophobia has been the default for most of my life.

I can imagine a life without Obergefell because I had a life before it. As a teenager, I did not expect gay marriage to be legal within my lifetime—I thought, if I were lucky, I might see it come to pass in my sixties.

I can imagine a life without Lawrence because I remember when it was passed. I was 15 years old and my family was planning a trip to New Orleans and my girlfriend was coming with us. We joked darkly about how we'd be criminals while we were there. But then they passed Lawrence before our trip, and it wasn't illegal anymore to do what you liked in the privacy of your own bedroom.

But it still felt illegal. I was too scared to hold my girlfriend's hand in public. They had murdered Matthew Shepard five years earlier. What good was Lawrence when we were still dying?

Like I said, homophobia has been the default, so your envelopes from Focus on the Family weren't a problem. I am the only gay person here, after all, and at the time I was the lowest paid and lowest on the totem pole. What right did I have to complain?

But now groups like Focus on the Family have come for women's reproductive health, against the advice of experts and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and science itself.

It might seem strange for me to draw a line when I don't even have a dog in the fight, but this is my line.

Please have your Focus on the Family mail forwarded to your home address going forward.

Thank you, [Vex]

#vex text: work edition #vex gets personal #this is a vex original post #roe v. wade #obergefell v. hodges #lawrence v. texas #focus on the family #microagressions

8 notes · View notes

the-sayuri-rin · 2 years

Photo

#LGBTQ +rights #LGBTQ+#lawrence v. texas

7 notes · View notes