Toggle navigation
Home
Ask A Question
Ask
Answer Questions
Answer
Users
Support/FAQ
Login
Register
Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Due to formatting, images, tables, or paragraphs may be out of place or not shown. Rest assured that they will be included and formatted correctly in your purchased answer.
Details
Question Title:
Part 1Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision i
Go Back to the Question
Answer Preview
<p>Rarely do XXXXXXXXXXX participate in public XXXXXX XXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, XXXX has XXX XXXX XXX case in the recent years in the persistent public XXXXXX over XXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX. This has been a XXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XX-XXXXXXXXX and appropriate XXX XXXXX XXX Roman XXXX(XXXXXX, n.d). The XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX a model of XXXXXXXXX and tolerance and also a non-XXXXXXXXX XXXXX precedent XXX the XXXXXXXXXXXX XX homosexuality which XXX been a great XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX over XXX years. XXX social XXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXX has a XXXXX XXXXXXXXX in XXX XXXXXX XXXX as in XXX Lawrence v. XXXXX decision in which XXX XXXXX’s sodomy laws XXXX declared unconstitutional. </p> <p>XXX deep rooted XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXX XXXX largely contributed to the XXXXXXXX towards the total XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXX of individuals XXXXXXX XX practice certain sexual XXXX as XXXX XX freedom XX orientation XXXXXXXX. XX XXX XXXX a XXXXXXX XX what XXXXXX really qualify as a fundamental XXXXX XXX the specific XXXXXXXXXX that call for XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX protection. XXX XXXXXXXXX XX fighting XXX protection to the rights of XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX in acts of XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX was XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX traditional beliefs on sexuality. </p> <p>The decision XX the Hardwick XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX on XXX Roman law that XXXXXXXXXX homosexual sodomy XX a capital XXXXX and it XXX against XXX moral and XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXX-XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. Moreover, XXXXXXX the significant XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX court’s approach XX XXX case XXX that which XXX considered XX the “ancient XXXXX” that XXXXX sodomy XX a capital crime under the same XXXXX XXXX. </p> <p>XXX XXXXX issue XX XXXXX significance XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX on XXX XXXXX XXX religion. XXXX XX the religious XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX. XXXXXXX, the states have no license XX issue out XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX of these groups. This XXXXX have XXXX a XXXXX XXXXXX that influenced the XXXXXXXX of XXX judges when it came to making XXXXXXXXX. Traditionally, XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XX religion that they XXXXXXX in thereby XXX high XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX XXX XXXXX and the bad from this perspective. </p> <p>XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXX the decision made in XXX XXXXXXXX v. Texas XXXX quite different from that witnessed in XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. At the time of the XXXX, it had been argued XXXX oral sex XXX not XXXXXXXXX prohibited by pre-twentieth century XXXXXX laws and hence XXX “ancient roots” XXXXXXXX did not affect XXX judgment. XXX XXXXXXXX XX the XXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX XX a new XXX XXXX XXX not XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX on “homosexual XXXXXX”. The Lawrence case XXX a start XX a XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX, in-XXX-XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XX a liberty interest, XXXXXXXXX by XXX XXXXXXXX XX substantive Due XXXXXXX(XXXXXX, n.d). </p> <p>XXXXXXX liberal gestures were XXXXXXX in the XXXXXX case XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXXX. The society’s acceptance and recent XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX activities has become a great XXXX in influencing XXX XXXXXXX state statutes on XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX sodomy. XXXXXXX, most XXXXXXXX are XXX into XXX so XX to protect human rights equally. Therefore, the XXXXXXXX brought forward by the homosexual XXXXXXXXX XXX the protection of their rights would XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX acceptable and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXXXXX one chooses XX look it at. </p> <p>The XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX the majority XXXX had a XXXX in XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX made by XXX XXXXXX. Since the XXX XXXXXX XX non-discriminatory, the XXXX XXXXXX XXXX ought XX be XXXXXXXXXX in any XXXX is the conduct rather XXXX XXX status. XX depth look into XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX requires XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX regardless of XXXXXX XXX race. Differences in XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX have also XXXXXX an embraced factor in the XXXXX today as compared XX the intense discrimination in XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX to XXX clouded XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX and traditions. XXXXX XX the XXXXXX of XXX XXXXX, the XXX XXXXXXX has significantly XXXXXXX in the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XX a XXXXXX of homosexual activists XXX XXXX XXX purpose XX doing away XXXX the moral XXXXXX that XX traditionally linked to XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. </p> <p>The XXXXX today seeks XX protect the rights XX XXXXXXXXXXX with XXX courts XX XXX forefront “an XXXXXXXXXX to subject XXXXXXXXXX persons XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX both in the public and in XXX private spheres." XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX a XXXXXXX XXXXXX of XXX XXXX XXXXXX in XXXXX of XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX it comes XX matters XXXX XXX not implicitly XXXXXXXXX in XXX constitution. For instance, XXXX prohibiting XXXXXX do not seem XX have XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX consenting XXXXXX acting in XXXXXXX XXX yet the cases Hardwick XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX spurred a lot XX concerns regarding XXXXX rights(Justia, n.d). </p> <p>XXXXXXX XXX moral XXXXXXXXXX play a XXXXX XXXX in XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX in XXXX XX right or wrong. XXXXX principles largely arise XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX beliefs as well as XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX comes XXXX. Same sex sexual conduct XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX and could even be considered XX a XXXX of disease. However, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX to an issue of XXXXXX that XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX partake in XXX quest XX satisfy their desires. XXX statutes concerning homosexuality and sodomy XXXXXX be clearly XXXXXXX so as to ensure optimum protection XX the deserved XXXXXX XX XXXXXX that choose that XXXX of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. <br> </p> <p>References </p> <p>FL. (XXXX). <i>XXXXXX v. Hardwick, (XXXX)</i>. XXXXXXXXX from FindLaw: <a XXXX="XXXX://XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX.com/us-XXXXXXX-XXXXX/XXX/XXX.XXXX">http://caselaw.XXXXXXX.com/XX-supreme-XXXXX/XXX/XXX.html</a> </p> <p>XXXXXX. (n.d). <i>XXXXXXXX v. XXXXX XXX U.S. 558 (2003)</i>. XXXXXXXXX from Justia: <a href="XXXXX://XXXXXXX.XXXXXX.XXX/XXXXX/XXXXXXX/XX/539/XXX/case.XXXX">https://XXXXXXX.XXXXXX.XXX/XXXXX/federal/us/539/558/XXXX.XXXX</a> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>">
Attachment #1 Preview
