U.S. Supreme Court takes pass on Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), earlier trajectory for LGBTQ rights?

https://books.google.com/books?id=l...were never presented to a grand jury"&f=false

" . . . formal charges were never presented to a grand jury . . . "
In OTL, the Supreme Court decided to take the case and it ended up being a set-back for LGBTQ rights. But what if the Supreme Court decides not to decide on the case, as I understand they do for the majority of potential cases which come before them?

How do you see lesbian and gay rights developing differently in the next three decades?
 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ision_in_bowers_v_hardwick_was_a_product.html

" . . . In 1982, when Hardwick was 29 and tending bar at a gay pub in Georgia, he threw a beer bottle into an outdoor trash can and got cited by the police for public drinking. The cop wrote down the wrong day on his summons. When Hardwick didn’t show up in court as a result, an arrest warrant was issued. An officer later showed up at his apartment to serve the warrant, and a guest who’d been sleeping on the living room couch said he wasn’t sure if Hardwick was home. The cop decided to take a look and found Hardwick in his bedroom, having oral sex with a man. They were both arrested for sodomy. . . "

" . . . In fact, the county prosecutor dropped the charges against Hardwick. . . "

=========

https://books.google.com/books?id=c... as it violated the right of privacy"&f=false

"The Appellate Court ruled that the Georgia statute against sodomy was indeed unconstitutional as it violated the right of privacy developed and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in several previous cases . . . most notably Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965)."
Yes, this does give some reason if Justices on the Supreme Court disagree. But they simply don't have the time to take on every case where they disagree with a appellate court, nor perhaps even every case where one appellate court is saying one thing and another something different which is not the case here. In fact, I think this might be one reason some justices have developed the intellectual concept of "judicial ripeness."

Again, what if the Supremes had simply taken a pass?
 
Last edited:
https://books.google.com/books?id=l...e&q="Supreme Court" "many more cases"&f=false


" . . . The justices reject many more cases for review than they decide— . . . "

In Supreme Court term 1979-'80:
4,781 total cases on docket, and
155 decided with opinion.

In Supreme Court term 1989-'90
5,746 total cases on docket, and
146 decided with opinion.

This source doesn't give the exact numbers for Supreme Court term 1985-'86, and Bowers v. Hardwick was decided on June 30, 1986, but I think it does give the general idea.
 

This is a pretty good 8-minute video.

The author Sarah talks about how in colonial America and the 1800s, sodomy laws were primarily used in cases of rape and incest to make sentencing harsher. Starting around the 1920s, many non-procreative acts were added to the laws. And the laws began to be used to target LGBT persons. McCarthyism in the 1950s included a strong anti-LGBT bias, and lesbians and gays were considered a security risk (obviously if you make homosexuality a fire-able offense!). Sarah also mentions briefly the rapid spread of psychiatry and the practice of diagnosing homosexuality as an illness. I wish she had gotten more into this (psychiatry has often been used as a means of control, and not always respectful of the individual and as a force for good).

So, this is certainly not the smooth, seamless tradition the Court seemed to have in mind. Should have taken a pass and let things evolve a little, and perhaps even re-think some of their own views, which is difficult for all of us! The Burger Court may have even ended up on the right side of history. :)
 
Last edited:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx <--about 2/3's of way down

In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?

Yes answers:

1982: 59%

1989: 71%

1992: 74%

1996: 84%


---


Do you think homosexuals should or should not be hired for each of the following occupations? First, ... Next, ... [RANDOM ORDER]?

Elementary school teachers


Yes answers:

1992: 41%

1996: 55%
So, ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is a winnable issue, and has been for a long time.

Now, there is the sad part that once you move to specifics, the higher level of general support drops off. In particular, this plays off the idea and scare tactic that lesbian or gay teachers are more likely to abuse. Almost I'd say, would that were the case, the world would have far less abuse! Sadly, abuse is much more a male problem. That is, most abusers are male, whether gay or straight.

So, you've got to engage the conversation. You've got to get people to lay their fears on the table, and be willing to talk about them and look at them honestly.

In fact, many Americans think it's already on the books, and it's not. :frown:
 
Last edited:
article-2465572-18CE8DCF00000578-836_634x408.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...iendship-Will--Grace-star-Eric-McCormack.html

And yes, the sit com Will & Grace, which debuted Monday, Sept. 21, 1998, probably did as much as anything to popularize the idea that gay persons have the same rights as anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Top