Williams Williams Reliable Consultants Majority Dissent Majority FR Analysis Lawrence NOT a FR Lawrence as a FR Lawrence NOT a FR case; follow case case; but does Glucksberg protect a liberty interest Narrow to use (right to be left Broad (right to Framing the Right sex toys)—NOT alone in the privacy engage in private fundamental of your bedroom intimate conduct in and personal the home without government recognized but not fundamental Level of Scrutiny Rational Basis Strict Scrutiny Rational sort of Governmental Morality OK Morality NOT OK Morality NOT OK Interest (whether SS or RB) (possibility that it could be OK for other laws) Law Upheld? Yes, statute No, statute No, statute constitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional 5. Public Sex *General Trend: Laws criminalizing public sex (or sodomy laws applied to public sex) upheld post-Lawrence because it is public conduct Equal Protection claim * NOTE: be an because the statutes are usually only targeted at gay men having sex in public, not straight people! Singson v. Commonwealth: Defendant solicited an undercover officer in a department store restroom. Defendant wanted to perform oral sex. Defendant argued that he couldn’t be prosecuted because Lawrence protected him by stating all sodomy statutes are facially unconsitutional. Court said Lawrence did not apply because the Lawrence limiting language specifically stated it did not apply to public sexual conduct and here Defendant was trying to have sex in public. Lawrence did not put an outright ban on all sodomy laws. Public vs. Private Factors to Look at: reasonable expectation of privacy ease of access
Williams Majority Williams Dissent Reliable Consultants Majority FR Analysis Lawrence NOT a FR case; follow Glucksberg Lawrence as a FR case Lawrence NOT a FR case; but does protect a liberty interest Framing the Right Narrow to use sex toys)—NOT fundamental (right to be left alone in the privacy of your bedroom and personal Broad (right to engage in private intimate conduct in the home without government but not fundamental Level of Scrutiny Rational Basis Strict Scrutiny Rational sort of Governmental Interest Morality OK Morality NOT OK (whether SS or RB) Morality NOT OK (possibility that it could be OK for other laws) Law Upheld? Yes, statute constitutional No, statute unconstitutional No, statute unconstitutional 5. Public Sex *General Trend: Laws criminalizing public sex (or sodomy laws applied to public sex) upheld post-Lawrence because it is public conduct * NOTE: be an Equal Protection claim because the statutes are usually only targeted at gay men having sex in public, not straight people! Singson v. Commonwealth: Defendant solicited an undercover officer in a department store restroom. Defendant wanted to perform oral sex. Defendant argued that he couldn’t be prosecuted because Lawrence protected him by stating all sodomy statutes are facially unconsitutional. Court said Lawrence did not apply because the Lawrence limiting language specifically stated it did not apply to public sexual conduct and here Defendant was trying to have sex in public. Lawrence did not put an outright ban on all sodomy laws. Public vs. Private Factors to Look at: reasonable expectation of privacy ease of access recognized
NeJaime.LawSexualityOutline.Spring2011.docx