It was a shock to all when it came out that Liberace was in a sexual relationship with a young boy. The relationship broke two norms, age gap and same gender relations. The relationship did not last long and soon after a court case arose between the lovers. There had been several problems and issues that occurred that drove the lovers to court. Since it had been one of the first court cases relating to gay relations, there were many problems with the ruling and jurisdiction in the case. Even after the case, issues still remained unsolved with the former couple. The court case of Liberace v. Thorson showed the some of the first known and initial problems with same sex relationship court proceedings before the LGBT equality movement.
The background
…show more content…
Thorson had decided to sue Liberace for $112 million ("Interview With Scott Thorson.). Thorson made a claim saying the Liberace had promised him that he would be cared for. He would have access to Liberace’s home, would receive $75 thousand a year for life, and receive up to $30 thousand a year for pet care. This was all supposed to start when Thorson moved in when he was 17 ("Palimony Suit …”). For the reasons Thorson sued, he was quoted saying, “The reason I sued Liberace was because he threw me on the streets and I had nothing. He called me a disgruntled employee. That I was a street hustler, that I was a liar. That there was never a sexual relationship. That I was nothing but a gold digger. And I was just a young kid. He was 48 years my senior. He knew better” (“Scott Thorson Says Ex-Lover…” ). Liberace did not take responsibility for the life he put upon Thorson, instead he brushed it off and made …show more content…
Back in the Liberace v. Thorson case many things were left unanswered. This showed the flaws and faults with same sex court proceedings. It showed how there were so many doubts present when going about same sex palimony litigations. The results of the palimony barely gave Thorson any of the money he originally sued for. With no job and a drug addiction he was out of money fast. The results of the case are remembered today as a dramatic case with Thorson being left as a drug addict. This court case affected the world because it was one of the first court cases highlighting the issues with same sex equality in
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
These landmark cases are symbolic of the ups and downs that marked the struggle for equal rights in America. Although these rulings were not always fair or just, they were representative of their time and place in American history, and serve to remind us of how far we have come as a nation and how much further we have to go.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
...icant. This one for many families today is very important. These cases are also the reason why during a census you have the opportunity to check multiple races, instead of just one. This case stirred debates of gay marriage, which is a matter of personal opinion. It is up to you whether that is a pro or a con.
As with all Supreme Court cases, the meaning of the Lawrence v. Texas will deepen when in the process of its interpretation as well when it is cited by the lower state courts and The Supreme Court itself. In any situation, the decision in the case contains the brave declaration of the dignity and freedom of choice of all homosexual individuals. It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
It is never enough to create a great product; it has to be coupled with a desire for that product. The competitive advantage that Wedgwood brought to his company was the ability to create demand for goods. He was able to see the needs of the market before the market did and then cultivating market demand to satisfy those needs with his goods. A differentiation strategy was put into place by Wedgwood for his products as there were already a number of pottery options available on the market. Instead of the low quality, irregular options that were available on the market, Wedgwood’s pottery was made from clay, rather than wood, and was a more uniform finished product. A method of increasing demand by raising the perceived value of the pottery is to drive up demand by the high affluent. One of the ways that he accomplished this was through a technique called inertia selling. By putting a high quality and reputable product in the hands of the elite with no penalty, Wedgwood can display first-hand his high-end craftsmanship and design. With the working class working in the homes of...
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
“The unprecedented growth of the gay community in recent history has transformed our culture and consciousness, creating radically new possibilities for people to ‘come out’ and live more openly as homosexuals”(Herdt 2). Before the 1969 Stonewall riot in New York, homosexuality was a taboo subject. Research concerning homosexuality emphasized the etiology, treatment, and psychological adjustment of homosexuals. Times have changed since 1969. Homosexuals have gained great attention in arts, entertainment, media, and politics. Yesterday’s research on homosexuality has expanded to include trying to understand the different experiences and situations of homosexuals (Ben-Ari 89-90).
As of 2015, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community continues to struggle for equal rights held by their straight counterparts. Socially, LGBT persons are subject to discrimination, hate crimes, and stigma, while legally, LGBT persons encounter obstacles that preclude them from basic rights afforded to every other subculture in America. One of the most divisive issues related to LGBT rights has been same-sex marriage, which has been creating conflict both politically and socially dating back to the 1970’s (Finnis, 1997). Those in favor of same-sex marriage argue that regardless of gender or sexual preference, marriage is a basic right that the government has no legitimate interest in blocking. Opponents argue that same-sex marriage is ethically and morally wrong, and they cite reasons spanning from religious beliefs to the creation of a slippery slope that would lead to the demise of the institution of marriage (Volokh, n.d.). Faced with the difficult task of balancing both sides of the equation, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the policy that will be analyzed in this paper.