The rights are based upon the work of our Founders of the Constitution, who set out to create a set of rules to protect us against our government from having too much power over each individual. The rights that we are proved with are our most basic fundamental law. Citing back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, when the courts ruled that birth control was an implied right to privacy of marital association from: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments. Along the way, there have been other landmark cases that have set precedence to the expansion of the right to privacy by the Supreme Court. Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which gave the right of cross-racial marriage and Stanley v. Georgia in 1969, in which the right to read obscene material in the privacy of one’s home was put into law. J.S. Mill’s Harm Principle states that the only reason to interfere with an individual’s liberty is when it prevents harm to others. The doctrine of liberty states that “individuals have a right to a substantial sphere of action—the ‘self-regarding’ sphere—in which they are free from social coercion.” This doctrine allowed free thought through speech and the right to private experimentation in ways of life with other consenting adults. According to Mill’s views on the Harm Principle and the Doctrine of Liberty, “the individual knows better than the society how to promote his/her own welfare.” Adults may choose to enter upon a personal relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice. Justice Scalia is arguing that the act of sodomy is harmful to others because if exposed to homosexuality, one might be induced to follow the path.

Most recently was the case of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Since the Supreme Court decided their last homosexual sodomy case, Bowers v. Hardwick, in 1986 on the grounds that the first theory (privacy and fundamental rights) didn’t apply to gay sodomy, they could overturn the Texas law on equal protection grounds without throwing out the Bowers precedent. “Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions,” was Justice Kennedy’s opinion of the Court. “In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.” This contradicts what Justice Scalia said, “Our Liberal needs are deeply rooted in tradition.” If what you do in your own home is your business, as along as you are not harming anyone else, why should sodomy be a crime? This is present in our Constitutional Rights. “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, exp

Some topics in this essay:
Bowers Hardwick, Justice Scalia, Kennedy Attempts, Fourteenth Amendment”, Doctrine Liberty, Lawrence Texas, Fourteenth Amendment, Lawrence Harwick, Georgia Court, Court Appeals, justice scalia, homosexual conduct, fundamental rights, supreme court, homosexual persons, homosexuals engage, bowers hardwick, lawrence texas, liberty protected, expression intimate, sexuality overt expression, dignity free persons, expression intimate conduct, retain dignity free, overt expression intimate,