As we all know the Constitution established three branches of government in order to limit power concentrated in the government. Though the Supreme Court ruled the Texas sodomy laws unconstitutional the role of the court is simply to interpret the law; the legislative makes the law; and the executive enforces the laws. Despite the court ruling in 2003 several states’ sodomy laws remain on the books and still enforced. Though recourse is still available through the appellate courts when necessary again the responsibility to protect an individuals rights falls within the purview of the courts. Though I understand the Framer’s reasoning behind the three branches, yet when I see this kind of action taken by certain states it becomes obvious there are flaws within the system.
Though not every state enforced the Lawrence ruling Flagrant Conduct discusses the statement made to the LBGTQ community by ruling the sodomy laws unconstitutional, and overruling Bowers. Bowers had ruled states could ban gay sex even sex within a home. The opinion of the court was derogatory to the LBGTQ community
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” is, at best, facetious. Pp.478 U. S. 191-194.
Overturning Bowers overturned a federal institutions’ statement laughing at the argument that gay sex should be protected. Arguing to protect gay sex is not simply about sex, it’s about existing authentically without being a criminal. When Justice Kennedy read the expert opinion of Lawrence those who sat within the confines of those walls wept with joy. Carpenter states the decorum within the Supreme Court is very stoic, but on that day decorum was set aside. The Justices watched on as those within the gallery wept while hearing the words of Justice Kennedy, some becoming choked up themselves.
In the simplest of terms onlookers could have called the Lawrence and Bowers cases a couple of sex act cases. However, when you think of sexuality sex is just one facet of a complex human state of being. Lawrence and Bowers were battles to authenticate and decriminalize the LBGTQ existence. Yet this was just one of many battles waged. Since Lawrence President Obama has repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell through executive order, the Windsor case ruled a federal restriction of marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional, which has catapulted states to overturn their own restrictions. All fifty states have challenged the constitutionality of these restrictions; eighteen states and Washington D.C. allow same-sex marriage.
We have won many battles yet our children are suffering. So many attempt and contemplate suicide. The risk for mental disorders, substance abuse, homelessness, sexual violence and bullying are staggering. This is not due to their sexuality, but due to the climate with which we live. As I said, though the Supreme Court ruled the sodomy laws unconstitutional the states continue to have these laws, and some enforce these laws. We often hear the rhetoric that being gay is an “abomination,””despicable,” “against God,” “God hates fags” the list goes on and on. Parents send their LBGTQ children to so called gay conversion “therapy” to pray away the gay. Now we have members within the Texas GOP party platform adopting language authenticating its legitimacy.
Conversion “therapy” has been deemed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Marriage and Families, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, American School Counselor Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO): Regional Office of the World Health Organization as lacking scientific evidence of any reparative value, and include many destructive risks: depression, self-harm, and anxiety.
“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.” – American Psychiatric Association
To read what each institution discussed in regards to conversion “therapy” the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has each of them available in one site.