Querying <I>Lawrence</I>
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2004 Querying Lawrence Berta E. Hernández-Truyol University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Berta E. Hernandez-Truyol, Querying Lawrence, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1151 (2004), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/412 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Querying Lawrence BERTA E. HERNANDEZ-TRUYOL* In 2003, the Supreme Court in the landmark decision Lawrence v. Texas found a Texas law, banning homosexual, but not heterosexual, sodomy to be unconstitutional. Thus, Lawrence ended the Bowers era in which morality was deemed to be a justification for discrimination against gays and lesbians. While the decision did bring to United States Constitutional analysis the radical idea that gays and lesbians are people too, it stopped short of addressing the real problem the case presents-the existence of a second-class citizenry. This Article examines the Lawrence decision in light of both the international, regional, and foreign jurisprudence and the critical theoreticalframeworks. In doing so, it provides a more complete rendition of the Lawrence facts than appears in the Supreme Court opinion and offers further insight into the litigants' life histories. This critical evaluation leads to the conclusion that the good in Lawrence be celebrated, but with caution, in order to move forward in a pluralistic, accepting, antisubordinationmodel. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRO DUCTION ...................................................................................... 1152 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1153 A . D om estic.................................................................................. 1155 1. Liberty and Privacy.................................................. 1155 2. EqualProtection ....................................................... 1166 B . Transnational.......................................................................... 1173 1. International............................................................. 1173 2. E uropean ................................................................... 1178 3. Foreign Cases ........................................................... 1197 C. ComparativeObservations ..................................................... 1207 1I. THE CASE-A QUESTION OF COHERENCE .......................................... 1212 A . The M ajority D ecision ............................................................ 1213 1. Justice Kennedy andLiberty .................................... 1213 2. Justice O'Connorand Equality.............................................. 1218 3. CriticalO bservations.............................................................. 1219 * Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law, University of Florida, Levin College of Law. Many thanks to my friends Sharon Elizabeth Rush, University of Florida, Levin College of Law, and Frank Valdes, University of Miami, for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this piece. I wish to thank Elizabeth M. Crowder (UF Law 2004) and Shelbi Day (UF Law 2002) for their invaluable research and editorial assistance. Finally, mil gracias to Cindy Zimmerman for her editorial and word processing genius. Dean Robert Jerry, through the generous summer research program at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law, supported the writing of this article. 1152 OHIO STATE LA WJOURNAL [Vol. 65:1151 B. Scalia'sDissent 1. The Substance ...........................................................1220 2. Critical Observations............................................... 1224 IV. QUERYING LAWRENCE-A SEARCH FOR COHERENCE ..................... 1228 A. Critical TheoreticalFrameworks .......................................... 1229 B. CriticalInterrogations ............................................................ 1234 1. Realities:A FullerAccount of the Facts ................. 1234 2. P rivacy ...................................................................... 1240 3. Equality ..................................................................... 1244 C . E mp ire ..................................................................................... 1254 V . C ON CLU SIO N ......................................................................................... 126 1 I. INTRODUCTION The case of Lawrence v. Texas,' decided on June 26, 2003, is a landmark decision that is noteworthy for more than just its outcome. It is a ground-breaking, culture-shifting case that turns on minimal facts about the people and circumstances central to the ruling. Reflecting the hyper-polarized blue/red political divide of the United States as a nation, the decision represents either paradise or perdition, progress or deterioration, salvation or transgression. In Lawrence, two men were arrested for, and criminally charged with engaging in same-sex sexual contact in one of their homes-activity prohibited by a Texas statute proscribing homosexual, but not heterosexual, sodomy.2 The criminal court denied motions to quash the complaints, so they entered pleas of nolo contendere and were convicted and fined.3 Although a court of appeals panel found the statute violated the state constitution, in a rehearing en banc, the Texas court, using a rational basis analysis, upheld the statute's constitutionality under both the state and federal equal protection and privacy provisions, ruling that it was within the purview of the State of Texas to view same-sex sodomy, but not 4 opposite-sex sodomy, as immoral. The two men challenged the constitutional validity of the Texas law as constituting an invasion of their right to privacy. In addition, because the statute criminalized only same-sex contact, the men challenged the statute on equal protection grounds.5 Significantly, the State of Texas claimed that the popular view on the immorality and abhorrence of same-sex sodomy provided rational grounding for the law.6 Moreover, given the moral disapprobation of the conduct, I Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 2 Id at 563. 31d. 4 Id. at 562-63; see also infra Part III. 5 See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 563-64. 6 Id. at 577-78. 2004] QUERYING LAWRENCE 1153 the State claimed the men could not assert same-sex sodomy as a fundamental 7 right because such rights must be rooted in the nation's history and traditions. Thus, Texas asserted that the statute rationally served to protect the legitimate goals of implementing public morality and furthering family values. The Supreme 8 Court, in a 6-3 decision, disagreed with Texas. This Article explores Lawrence in the context not only of relevant domestic jurisprudence, but also of pertinent transnational jurisprudence. Part II examines the legal context of the Lawrence decision-Part II.A, Domestic, presents the domestic legal developments; Part II.B, Transnational,sets forth the transnational legal context, discussing decisions of international, regional, and foreign courts, as well as several relevant European administrative measures. Part HI, after setting out the Court's statement of the Lawrence facts, presents and analyzes the Lawrence decision, including Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, Justice O'Connor's concurrence, and Justice Scalia's dissent. Finally, Part IV presents a critical analysis of Lawrence in three sections. Part IV.A, entitled Critical Theoretical Frameworks, briefly sets out critical theoretical paradigms that are useful in interrogating Lawrence. Part IV.B, CriticalInterrogations, provides a more complete version of the events that led to the case, as well as additional information about the litigants. This section utilizes critical theory to analyze the privacy and equality components of the decision. Part IV.C, Empire, engages concepts of empire to evaluate the decision and explore its consequences. The conclusion, Part V, suggests that Lawrence is a good decision as far as it goes, but one that is plagued by the schisms it leaves unanswered. The conclusion urges that we celebrate the good in Lawrence, but be cautious about its potential deficits in order to move forward in providing all people full dignity and respect in a pluralistic, accepting, antisubordination world. II. LEGAL BACKGROUND The concepts of equal protection, privacy, and liberty are not solely the purview of U.S. law; they also have international significance and protection. In the United States, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution expressly protect the liberty interest. 9 International and regional documents, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights10 (Universal 7 See id at 582-83 (O'Connor, J., concurring). 8Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 561. 9 U.S. CONST. amend. V (providing that "[n]o person shall.. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"); U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (prohibiting any state from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). 10 UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,