Lawrence V. Texas Case Study

Indeed, themes of coercion are oftentimes synonymous with family-related oppression that various groups faced. Some benefits were meant for children who were missing a parent, as merely lacking finances was not enough to merit welfare. Yet despite defining the condition as “absence of a parent,” what these programs really meant was the absence of a father-- the traditional wage-earner of the household. [footnote 115] There was anxiety about whether or not “able-bodied males might surreptitiously benefit from grants given to women and children,” for if one was physically able then regardless of whether or not the wages and hours were fair it was believed one should work. [footnote 124] Thus, any perceived method to circumvent such assigning

Texas can be attributed to the angle from which the defendant and justices approached the case. Instead of focusing solely on due process, from which the petitioners’ right to “engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” is derived, attention was also given to equal protection under the law. By criminalizing “sodomy” and thus homosexuality, Texas made it “more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else,” thus legally sanctioning “discriminations against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law.” [footnote O’Connor, concur] The fear was that the law would set a precedence for discrimination in various fields of everyday life, ranging from family to employment and housing. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor points out in her concurrence, although the criminalization of sodomy (most broadly defined in American law as non-procreative sex) itself may not be unconstitutional, the way the law is implemented was, as only homosexual sodomy was banned (as opposed to heterosexual sodomy). Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law represents a “bare desire to harm the group.” [footnote ibid] Although Texas invoked the moral argument, as government had done in the past when regulating marriage and family and other forms of intimate relationships, O’Connor found such arguments to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, (judicial) government

For freedpeople in the wake of the Civil War, marriage was an affirmation of citizenship and all the rights that were derived from their new legal status, as well as a juxtaposition to their former status of slaves where the denial of their marriages and family relations was just another way to emphasize the dehumanizing nature of slavery. Yet it was also a means of discrimination based on preconceived notions of morality and conduct in regards to race, stigmas which would carry over to the treatment of blacks in the welfare system. Within the system, family was used as a means of coercion in forcing people (especially African-Americans and their families) into the workforce as a means of cheap labor, even if the wages and work were not sufficient to sustain them financially. Again, morality was oftentimes cited as the excuse, with the rationale that the morality of individuals who did not work would adversely affect the very moral fiber and wellbeing of the United States. Finally, the morality argument (and governmental