bowers
hardwick
argued
march
decided
june
charged
violating
georgia
statute
criminalizing
sodomy
committing
act
another
adult
male
bedroom
home
respondent
hardwick
respondent
brought
suit
federal
district
challenging
constitutionality
statute
insofar
criminalized
consensual
sodomy
granted
defendants
motion
dismiss
failure
state
claim
appeals
reversed
remanded
holding
georgia
statute
violated
respondent
fundamental
rights
held
georgia
statute
constitutional
pp
constitution
confer
fundamental
right
upon
homosexuals
engage
sodomy
none
fundamental
rights
announced
prior
cases
involving
family
relationships
marriage
procreation
bear
resemblance
right
asserted
case
claim
cases
stand
proposition
kind
private
sexual
conduct
consenting
adults
constitutionally
insulated
state
proscription
unsupportable
pp
background
many
criminalized
sodomy
still
claim
right
engage
conduct
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tradition
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
best
facetious
pp
great
resistance
expand
reach
due
process
clauses
cover
new
fundamental
rights
otherwise
judiciary
necessarily
take
upon
authority
govern
country
without
constitutional
authority
claimed
right
case
falls
far
short
overcoming
resistance
pp
fact
homosexual
conduct
occurs
privacy
home
affect
result
stanley
georgia
distinguished
pp
sodomy
laws
invalidated
asserted
basis
majority
belief
sodomy
immoral
inadequate
rationale
support
laws
white
delivered
opinion
burger
powell
rehnquist
joined
burger
post
powell
post
filed
concurring
opinions
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
stevens
joined
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
post
michael
hobbs
senior
assistant
attorney
general
georgia
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
michael
bowers
attorney
general
pro
se
marion
gordon
first
assistant
attorney
general
daryl
robinson
senior
assistant
attorney
general
laurence
tribe
argued
cause
respondent
hardwick
brief
kathleen
sullivan
kathleen
wilde
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
catholic
league
religious
civil
rights
steven
frederick
mcdowell
rutherford
institute
et
al
charles
bundren
guy
farley
george
weaver
william
hollberg
wendell
bird
john
whitehead
thomas
kotouc
alfred
lindh
david
robinson
pro
se
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
new
york
et
al
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
robert
hermann
solicitor
general
lawrence
kahn
howard
zwickel
charles
fraser
sanford
cohen
assistant
attorneys
general
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
american
jewish
congress
daniel
levenson
david
cohen
frederick
mandel
american
psychological
association
et
al
margaret
farrell
ewing
donald
bersoff
anne
simon
nadine
taub
herbert
semmel
association
bar
city
new
york
steven
rosen
national
organization
women
john
katz
presbyterian
church
et
al
jeffrey
bramlett
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
lesbian
rights
project
et
al
mary
dunlap
national
gay
rights
advocates
et
al
edward
errante
leonard
graff
jay
kohorn
justice
white
delivered
opinion
august
respondent
hardwick
hereafter
respondent
charged
violating
georgia
statute
criminalizing
sodomy
committing
act
another
adult
male
bedroom
respondent
home
preliminary
hearing
district
attorney
decided
present
matter
grand
jury
unless
evidence
developed
respondent
brought
suit
federal
district
challenging
constitutionality
statute
insofar
criminalized
consensual
sodomy
asserted
practicing
homosexual
georgia
sodomy
statute
administered
defendants
placed
imminent
danger
arrest
statute
several
reasons
violates
federal
constitution
district
granted
defendants
motion
dismiss
failure
state
claim
relying
doe
commonwealth
attorney
city
richmond
supp
ed
summarily
affirmed
divided
panel
appeals
eleventh
circuit
reversed
first
held
doe
distinguishable
event
undermined
later
decisions
summary
affirmance
case
require
affirmance
district
relying
decisions
griswold
connecticut
eisenstadt
baird
stanley
georgia
roe
wade
went
hold
georgia
statute
violated
respondent
fundamental
rights
homosexual
activity
private
intimate
association
beyond
reach
state
regulation
reason
ninth
amendment
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
case
remanded
trial
prevail
state
prove
statute
supported
compelling
interest
narrowly
drawn
means
achieving
end
courts
appeals
arrived
judgments
contrary
eleventh
circuit
case
granted
attorney
general
petition
certiorari
questioning
holding
sodomy
statute
violates
fundamental
rights
homosexuals
agree
petitioner
appeals
erred
hence
reverse
judgment
case
require
judgment
whether
laws
sodomy
consenting
adults
general
homosexuals
particular
wise
desirable
raises
question
right
propriety
state
legislative
decisions
repeal
laws
criminalize
homosexual
sodomy
decisions
invalidating
laws
state
constitutional
grounds
issue
presented
whether
federal
constitution
confers
fundamental
right
upon
homosexuals
engage
sodomy
hence
invalidates
laws
many
still
make
conduct
illegal
done
long
time
case
also
calls
judgment
limits
role
carrying
constitutional
mandate
first
register
disagreement
appeals
respondent
prior
cases
construed
constitution
confer
right
privacy
extends
homosexual
sodomy
intents
purposes
decided
case
reach
line
cases
sketched
carey
population
services
international
pierce
society
sisters
meyer
nebraska
described
dealing
child
rearing
education
prince
massachusetts
family
relationships
skinner
oklahoma
ex
rel
williamson
procreation
loving
virginia
marriage
griswold
connecticut
supra
eisenstadt
baird
supra
contraception
roe
wade
abortion
latter
three
cases
interpreted
construing
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
confer
fundamental
individual
right
decide
whether
beget
bear
child
carey
population
services
international
supra
accepting
decisions
cases
description
think
evident
none
rights
announced
cases
bears
resemblance
claimed
constitutional
right
homosexuals
engage
acts
sodomy
asserted
case
connection
family
marriage
procreation
one
hand
homosexual
activity
demonstrated
either
appeals
respondent
moreover
claim
cases
nevertheless
stand
proposition
kind
private
sexual
conduct
consenting
adults
constitutionally
insulated
state
proscription
unsupportable
indeed
opinion
carey
twice
asserted
privacy
right
griswold
line
cases
found
one
protections
provided
due
process
clause
reach
far
precedent
aside
however
respondent
us
announce
appeals
fundamental
right
engage
homosexual
sodomy
quite
unwilling
true
despite
language
due
process
clauses
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
appears
focus
processes
life
liberty
property
taken
cases
legion
clauses
interpreted
substantive
content
subsuming
rights
great
extent
immune
federal
state
regulation
proscription
among
cases
recognizing
rights
little
textual
support
constitutional
language
meyer
prince
pierce
fall
category
privacy
cases
griswold
carey
striving
assure
public
announcing
rights
readily
identifiable
constitution
text
involves
much
imposition
justices
choice
values
federal
government
sought
identify
nature
rights
qualifying
heightened
judicial
protection
palko
connecticut
said
category
includes
fundamental
liberties
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
neither
liberty
justice
exist
sacrificed
different
description
fundamental
liberties
appeared
moore
east
cleveland
opinion
powell
characterized
liberties
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tradition
powell
see
also
griswold
connecticut
obvious
us
neither
formulations
extend
fundamental
right
homosexuals
engage
acts
consensual
sodomy
proscriptions
conduct
ancient
roots
see
generally
survey
constitutional
right
privacy
context
homosexual
activity
miami
rev
sodomy
criminal
offense
common
law
forbidden
laws
original
ratified
bill
rights
fourteenth
amendment
ratified
union
criminal
sodomy
laws
fact
outlawed
sodomy
today
district
columbia
continue
provide
criminal
penalties
sodomy
performed
private
consenting
adults
see
survey
miami
supra
background
claim
right
engage
conduct
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tradition
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
best
facetious
inclined
take
expansive
view
authority
discover
new
fundamental
rights
imbedded
due
process
clause
vulnerable
comes
nearest
illegitimacy
deals
constitutional
law
little
cognizable
roots
language
design
constitution
painfully
demonstrated
executive
resulted
repudiation
much
substantive
gloss
placed
due
process
clauses
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
therefore
great
resistance
expand
substantive
reach
clauses
particularly
requires
redefining
category
rights
deemed
fundamental
otherwise
judiciary
necessarily
takes
authority
govern
country
without
express
constitutional
authority
claimed
right
pressed
us
today
falls
short
overcoming
resistance
respondent
however
asserts
result
different
homosexual
conduct
occurs
privacy
home
relies
stanley
georgia
held
first
amendment
prevents
conviction
possessing
reading
obscene
material
privacy
one
home
first
amendment
means
anything
means
state
business
telling
man
sitting
alone
house
books
may
read
films
may
watch
stanley
protect
conduct
protected
outside
home
partially
prevented
enforcement
state
obscenity
laws
decision
firmly
grounded
first
amendment
right
pressed
upon
us
similar
support
text
constitution
qualify
recognition
prevailing
principles
construing
fourteenth
amendment
limits
also
difficult
discern
plainly
enough
otherwise
illegal
conduct
always
immunized
whenever
occurs
home
victimless
crimes
possession
use
illegal
drugs
escape
law
committed
home
stanley
recognized
holding
offered
protection
possession
home
drugs
firearms
stolen
goods
respondent
submission
limited
voluntary
sexual
conduct
consenting
adults
difficult
except
fiat
limit
claimed
right
homosexual
conduct
leaving
exposed
prosecution
adultery
incest
sexual
crimes
even
though
committed
home
unwilling
start
road
even
conduct
issue
fundamental
right
respondent
asserts
must
rational
basis
law
none
case
presumed
belief
majority
electorate
georgia
homosexual
sodomy
immoral
unacceptable
said
inadequate
rationale
support
law
law
however
constantly
based
notions
morality
laws
representing
essentially
moral
choices
invalidated
due
process
clause
courts
busy
indeed
even
respondent
makes
claim
insists
majority
sentiments
morality
homosexuality
declared
inadequate
agree
unpersuaded
sodomy
laws
invalidated
basis
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversed
footnotes
john
mary
doe
also
plaintiffs
action
alleged
wished
engage
sexual
activity
proscribed
privacy
home
app
chilled
deterred
engaging
activity
existence
statute
hardwick
arrest
district
held
however
neither
sustained
immediate
danger
sustaining
direct
injury
enforcement
statute
proper
standing
maintain
action
appeals
affirmed
district
judgment
dismissing
claim
lack
standing
challenge
holding
claim
properly
therefore
hardwick
challenge
georgia
statute
applied
consensual
homosexual
sodomy
express
opinion
constitutionality
georgia
statute
applied
acts
sodomy
see
baker
wade
rehearing
denied
en
banc
dronenburg
zech
app
rehearing
denied
app
petitioner
also
submits
appeals
erred
holding
district
obligated
follow
summary
affirmance
doe
need
resolve
dispute
prefer
give
plenary
consideration
merits
case
rather
rely
earlier
action
doe
see
usery
turner
elkhorn
mining
massachusetts
board
retirement
murgia
edelman
jordan
cf
hicks
miranda
criminal
sodomy
laws
effect
connecticut
public
statute
laws
state
connecticut
title
lxvi
ch
rev
delaware
laws
state
delaware
ch
passed
georgia
criminal
sodomy
statute
sodomy
crime
common
law
general
assembly
adopted
common
law
england
law
georgia
first
laws
state
georgia
pt
maryland
criminal
sodomy
statute
maryland
declaration
rights
passed
however
stated
inhabitants
maryland
entitled
common
law
england
sodomy
crime
common
law
swindler
sources
documents
constitutions
massachusetts
acts
laws
passed
general
massachusetts
ch
act
mar
new
hampshire
passed
first
sodomy
statute
acts
laws
new
hampshire
sodomy
crime
common
law
new
jersey
time
ratification
bill
rights
state
enacted
first
criminal
sodomy
law
five
years
later
acts
twentieth
general
assembly
mar
ch
dc
new
york
laws
new
york
ch
passed
time
ratification
bill
rights
north
carolina
adopted
english
statute
henry
viii
outlawing
sodomy
see
collection
statutes
parliament
england
force
state
ch
martin
ed
pennsylvania
laws
fourteenth
general
assembly
commonwealth
pennsylvania
ch
cliv
passed
rhode
island
passed
first
sodomy
law
earliest
acts
laws
colony
rhode
island
providence
plantations
south
carolina
public
laws
state
south
carolina
time
ratification
bill
rights
virginia
specific
statute
outlawing
sodomy
adopted
english
common
law
hening
laws
virginia
ch
passed
criminal
sodomy
statutes
effect
alabama
rev
code
arizona
terr
howell
code
ch
arkansas
ark
ch
art
iv
california
cal
laws
colorado
terr
rev
ch
connecticut
gen
tit
ch
delaware
del
rev
ch
florida
rev
div
passed
georgia
code
kingdom
hawaii
haw
penal
code
ch
illinois
rev
div
kansas
terr
kan
ch
kentucky
rev
ch
art
iv
louisiana
la
rev
crimes
offences
maine
rev
tit
xii
ch
maryland
md
code
art
massachusetts
mass
gen
ch
michigan
rev
tit
ch
minnesota
minn
ch
mississippi
miss
rev
code
ch
lii
art
missouri
mo
rev
ch
art
viii
montana
terr
mont
acts
resolutions
memorials
criminal
practice
acts
ch
iv
nebraska
terr
neb
rev
crim
code
ch
nevada
terr
comp
laws
crimes
punishments
new
hampshire
laws
act
june
new
jersey
rev
tit
ch
new
york
rev
pt
ch
tit
ed
north
carolina
rev
code
ch
oregon
laws
crimes
morality
ch
pennsylvania
act
mar
pub
digest
statute
law
purdon
rhode
island
gen
ch
south
carolina
act
stat
large
tennessee
code
ch
art
texas
tex
rev
tit
ch
art
passed
vermont
acts
laws
state
virginia
code
ch
west
virginia
code
ch
wisconsin
terr
stat
illinois
adopted
american
law
institute
model
penal
code
decriminalized
adult
consensual
private
sexual
conduct
criminal
code
laws
pp
codified
amended
rev
ch
repealed
see
american
law
institute
model
penal
code
proposed
official
draft
respondent
defend
judgment
based
ninth
amendment
equal
protection
clause
eighth
amendment
chief
justice
burger
concurring
join
opinion
write
separately
underscore
view
constitutional
terms
thing
fundamental
right
commit
homosexual
sodomy
notes
ante
proscriptions
sodomy
ancient
roots
decisions
individuals
relating
homosexual
conduct
subject
state
intervention
throughout
history
western
civilization
condemnation
practices
firmly
rooted
moral
ethical
standards
homosexual
sodomy
capital
crime
roman
law
see
code
theod
code
see
also
bailey
homosexuality
western
christian
tradition
english
reformation
powers
ecclesiastical
courts
transferred
king
courts
first
english
statute
criminalizing
sodomy
passed
hen
viii
ch
blackstone
described
infamous
crime
nature
offense
deeper
malignity
rape
heinous
act
mention
disgrace
human
nature
crime
fit
named
blackstone
commentaries
common
law
england
including
prohibition
sodomy
became
received
law
georgia
colonies
georgia
legislature
passed
statute
issue
statute
continuously
force
one
form
another
since
time
hold
act
homosexual
sodomy
somehow
protected
fundamental
right
cast
aside
millennia
moral
teaching
essentially
question
personal
preferences
rather
legislative
authority
state
find
nothing
constitution
depriving
state
power
enact
statute
challenged
justice
powell
concurring
join
opinion
agree
fundamental
right
substantive
right
due
process
clause
claimed
respondent
hardwick
found
exist
appeals
suggest
however
respondent
may
protected
eighth
amendment
constitution
georgia
statute
issue
case
code
ann
authorizes
imprison
person
years
single
private
consensual
act
sodomy
view
prison
sentence
conduct
certainly
sentence
long
duration
create
serious
eighth
amendment
issue
georgia
statute
single
act
sodomy
even
private
setting
home
felony
comparable
terms
possible
sentence
imposed
serious
felonies
aggravated
battery
arson
robbery
case
however
respondent
tried
much
less
convicted
sentenced
moreover
respondent
raised
eighth
amendment
issue
reasons
constitutional
argument
us
among
continue
make
sodomy
crime
georgia
authorizes
one
longest
possible
sentences
see
code
maximum
rev
stat
ann
west
supp
days
ark
stat
ann
maximum
code
maximum
stat
maximum
code
ann
years
idaho
code
minimum
stat
ann
supp
maximum
rev
stat
days
months
la
rev
stat
ann
west
maximum
md
ann
code
art
maximum
comp
laws
maximum
stat
maximum
miss
code
ann
maximum
mo
rev
stat
supp
maximum
mont
code
ann
maximum
rev
stat
maximum
stat
maximum
okla
tit
maximum
laws
years
code
maximum
code
ann
years
tex
penal
code
ann
maximum
fine
utah
code
ann
maximum
code
maximum
conceded
oral
argument
prior
complaint
respondent
hardwick
reported
decision
involving
prosecution
private
homosexual
sodomy
statute
several
decades
see
thompson
aldredge
moreover
state
declined
present
criminal
charge
hardwick
grand
jury
suit
declaratory
judgment
brought
respondents
challenging
validity
statute
history
nonenforcement
suggests
moribund
character
today
laws
criminalizing
type
private
consensual
conduct
repealed
similar
statutes
constitutional
validity
georgia
statute
put
issue
respondents
reasons
stated
say
conduct
condemned
hundreds
years
become
fundamental
right
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
case
fundamental
right
engage
homosexual
sodomy
purports
declare
ante
stanley
georgia
fundamental
right
watch
obscene
movies
katz
fundamental
right
place
interstate
bets
telephone
booth
rather
case
comprehensive
rights
right
valued
civilized
men
namely
right
let
alone
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
statute
issue
code
ann
denies
individuals
right
decide
whether
engage
particular
forms
private
consensual
sexual
activity
concludes
valid
essentially
laws
many
still
make
conduct
illegal
done
long
time
ante
fact
moral
judgments
expressed
statutes
like
may
natural
familiar
conclude
judgment
upon
question
whether
statutes
embodying
conflict
constitution
roe
wade
quoting
lochner
new
york
holmes
dissenting
like
justice
holmes
believe
revolting
better
reason
rule
law
laid
time
henry
iv
still
revolting
grounds
upon
laid
vanished
long
since
rule
simply
persists
blind
imitation
past
holmes
path
law
harv
rev
believe
must
analyze
respondent
hardwick
claim
light
values
underlie
constitutional
right
privacy
right
means
anything
means
georgia
prosecute
citizens
making
choices
intimate
aspects
lives
must
assert
choice
made
abominable
crime
fit
named
among
christians
herring
state
haste
reverse
appeals
hold
constitution
confe
fundamental
right
upon
homosexuals
engage
sodomy
ante
relegates
actual
statute
challenged
ignores
procedural
posture
case
fair
reading
statute
complaint
clearly
reveals
majority
distorted
question
case
presents
first
almost
obsessive
focus
homosexual
activity
particularly
hard
justify
light
broad
language
georgia
used
unlike
georgia
legislature
proceeded
assumption
homosexuals
different
citizens
lives
may
controlled
way
tolerated
limited
choices
citizens
cf
ante
rather
georgia
provided
person
commits
offense
sodomy
performs
submits
sexual
act
involving
sex
organs
one
person
mouth
anus
another
code
ann
sex
status
persons
engage
act
irrelevant
matter
state
law
fact
extent
discern
legislative
purpose
georgia
enactment
purpose
seems
broaden
coverage
law
reach
heterosexual
well
homosexual
activity
therefore
see
basis
decision
treat
case
applied
challenge
see
ante
georgia
attempt
brief
oral
argument
defend
solely
grounds
prohibits
homosexual
activity
michael
hardwick
standing
may
rest
significant
part
georgia
apparent
willingness
enforce
homosexuals
law
seems
desire
enforce
heterosexuals
see
tr
oral
arg
cf
claim
involves
unconstitutional
intrusion
privacy
right
intimate
association
depend
way
sexual
orientation
second
disagree
refusal
consider
whether
runs
afoul
eighth
ninth
amendments
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
ante
respondent
complaint
expressly
invoked
ninth
amendment
see
app
relied
heavily
griswold
connecticut
identifies
amendment
one
specific
constitutional
provisions
giving
life
substance
understanding
privacy
see
brief
respondent
hardwick
tr
oral
arg
importantly
procedural
posture
case
requires
affirm
appeals
judgment
ground
respondent
may
entitled
relief
case
us
petitioner
motion
dismiss
failure
state
claim
fed
rule
civ
proc
see
app
principle
law
complaint
dismissed
merely
plaintiff
allegations
support
particular
legal
theory
advances
duty
examine
complaint
determine
allegations
provide
relief
possible
theory
bramlet
wilson
see
parr
great
lakes
express
due
tallahassee
theaters
howell
wright
miller
federal
practice
procedure
pp
see
also
conley
gibson
thus
even
respondent
advance
claims
based
eighth
ninth
amendments
equal
protection
clause
complaint
dismissed
provisions
entitle
relief
need
reach
either
eighth
amendment
equal
protection
clause
issues
believe
hardwick
stated
cognizable
claim
interferes
constitutionally
protected
interests
privacy
freedom
intimate
association
neither
eighth
amendment
equal
protection
clause
clearly
irrelevant
claim
resting
either
provision
peremptorily
dismissed
cramped
reading
issue
makes
short
opinion
little
make
persuasive
one
ii
cases
long
recognized
constitution
embodies
promise
certain
private
sphere
individual
liberty
kept
largely
beyond
reach
government
thornburgh
american
college
obstetricians
gynecologists
construing
right
privacy
proceeded
along
two
somewhat
distinct
albeit
complementary
lines
first
recognized
privacy
interest
reference
certain
decisions
properly
individual
make
roe
wade
pierce
society
sisters
second
recognized
privacy
interest
reference
certain
places
without
regard
particular
activities
individuals
occupy
engaged
karo
payton
new
york
rios
case
us
implicates
decisional
spatial
aspects
right
privacy
concludes
today
none
prior
cases
dealing
various
decisions
individuals
entitled
make
free
governmental
interference
bears
resemblance
claimed
constitutional
right
homosexuals
engage
acts
sodomy
asserted
case
ante
true
cases
may
characterized
connection
protection
family
see
roberts
jaycees
conclusion
extend
boundary
ignores
warning
moore
east
cleveland
plurality
opinion
clos
ing
eyes
basic
reasons
certain
rights
associated
family
accorded
shelter
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
protect
rights
contribute
direct
material
way
general
public
welfare
form
central
part
individual
life
concept
privacy
embodies
moral
fact
person
belongs
others
society
whole
thornburgh
american
college
obstetricians
gynecologists
stevens
concurring
quoting
fried
correspondence
phil
pub
affairs
protect
decision
whether
marry
precisely
marriage
association
promotes
way
life
causes
harmony
living
political
faiths
bilateral
loyalty
commercial
social
projects
griswold
connecticut
protect
decision
whether
child
parenthood
alters
dramatically
individual
demographic
considerations
bible
command
fruitful
multiply
cf
thornburgh
american
college
obstetricians
gynecologists
supra
stevens
concurring
protect
family
contributes
powerfully
happiness
individuals
preference
stereotypical
households
cf
moore
east
cleveland
plurality
opinion
recognized
roberts
ability
independently
define
one
identity
central
concept
liberty
truly
exercised
vacuum
depend
emotional
enrichment
close
ties
others
ibid
willful
blindness
obscure
fact
sexual
intimacy
sensitive
key
relationship
human
existence
central
family
life
community
welfare
development
human
personality
paris
adult
theatre
slaton
see
also
carey
population
services
international
fact
individuals
define
significant
way
intimate
sexual
relationships
others
suggests
nation
diverse
may
many
right
ways
conducting
relationships
much
richness
relationship
come
freedom
individual
choose
form
nature
intensely
personal
bonds
see
karst
freedom
intimate
association
yale
cf
eisenstadt
baird
roe
wade
variety
circumstances
recognized
necessary
corollary
giving
individuals
freedom
choose
conduct
lives
acceptance
fact
different
individuals
make
different
choices
example
holding
clearly
important
state
interest
public
education
give
way
competing
claim
amish
effect
extended
formal
schooling
threatened
way
life
declared
assumption
today
majority
right
amish
others
like
wrong
way
life
odd
even
erratic
interferes
rights
interests
others
condemned
different
wisconsin
yoder
claims
decision
today
merely
refuses
recognize
fundamental
right
engage
homosexual
sodomy
really
refused
recognize
fundamental
interest
individuals
controlling
nature
intimate
associations
others
behavior
hardwick
faces
prosecution
occurred
home
place
fourth
amendment
attaches
special
significance
treatment
aspect
case
symptomatic
overall
refusal
consider
broad
principles
informed
treatment
privacy
specific
cases
right
privacy
mere
aggregation
number
entitlements
engage
specific
behavior
protecting
physical
integrity
home
merely
means
protecting
specific
activities
often
take
place
even
understanding
contours
right
privacy
depends
reference
place
katz
harlan
concurring
essence
fourth
amendment
violation
breaking
person
doors
rummaging
drawers
rather
invasion
indefensible
right
personal
security
personal
liberty
private
property
california
ciraolo
powell
dissenting
quoting
boyd
interpretation
pivotal
case
stanley
georgia
entirely
unconvincing
stanley
held
georgia
undoubted
power
punish
public
distribution
constitutionally
unprotected
obscene
material
permit
state
punish
private
possession
material
according
majority
stanley
relied
entirely
first
amendment
thus
claimed
sheds
light
cases
involving
printed
materials
ante
stanley
said
rather
stanley
anchored
holding
fourth
amendment
special
protection
individual
home
makers
constitution
undertook
secure
conditions
favorable
pursuit
happiness
recognized
significance
man
spiritual
nature
feelings
intellect
knew
part
pain
pleasure
satisfactions
life
found
material
things
sought
protect
americans
beliefs
thoughts
emotions
sensations
rights
appellant
asserting
case
us
asserting
right
read
observe
pleases
right
satisfy
intellectual
emotional
needs
privacy
home
quoting
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
iii
failure
comprehend
magnitude
liberty
interests
stake
case
leads
slight
question
whether
petitioner
behalf
state
justified
georgia
infringement
interests
believe
neither
two
general
justifications
petitioner
advanced
warrants
dismissing
respondent
challenge
failure
state
claim
first
petitioner
asserts
acts
made
criminal
statute
may
serious
adverse
consequences
general
public
health
welfare
spreading
communicable
diseases
fostering
criminal
activity
brief
petitioner
inasmuch
case
dismissed
district
pleading
surprising
record
us
barren
evidence
support
petitioner
claim
light
state
record
see
justification
attempt
equate
private
consensual
sexual
activity
issue
possession
home
drugs
firearms
stolen
goods
ante
stanley
refused
extend
protection
none
behavior
mentioned
stanley
properly
viewed
ictimless
ante
drugs
weapons
inherently
dangerous
see
mclaughlin
property
stolen
someone
must
wrongfully
deprived
nothing
record
provides
justification
finding
activity
forbidden
physically
dangerous
either
persons
engaged
others
core
petitioner
defense
however
respondent
others
engage
conduct
prohibited
interfere
georgia
exercise
right
nation
maintain
decent
society
paris
adult
theater
slaton
quoting
jacobellis
ohio
warren
dissenting
essentially
petitioner
argues
agrees
fact
acts
described
hundreds
years
thousands
uniformly
condemned
immoral
sufficient
reason
permit
state
ban
today
brief
petitioner
see
ante
agree
either
length
time
majority
held
convictions
passions
defends
withdraw
legislation
security
see
roe
wade
loving
virginia
brown
board
education
justice
jackson
wrote
eloquently
west
virginia
board
education
barnette
apply
limitations
constitution
fear
freedom
intellectually
spiritually
diverse
even
contrary
disintegrate
social
organization
reedom
differ
limited
things
matter
much
mere
shadow
freedom
test
substance
right
differ
things
touch
heart
existing
order
see
also
karst
yale
precisely
issue
raised
case
touches
heart
makes
individuals
especially
sensitive
rights
whose
choices
upset
majority
assertion
traditional
values
proscribe
conduct
involved
brief
petitioner
provide
adequate
justification
certain
means
religious
groups
condemn
behavior
issue
gives
state
license
impose
judgments
entire
citizenry
legitimacy
secular
legislation
depends
instead
whether
state
advance
justification
law
beyond
conformity
religious
doctrine
see
mcgowan
maryland
stone
graham
thus
far
buttressing
case
petitioner
invocation
leviticus
romans
thomas
aquinas
sodomy
heretical
status
middle
ages
undermines
suggestion
represents
legitimate
use
secular
coercive
power
state
punish
private
behavior
religious
intolerance
punish
behavior
racial
animus
constitution
control
prejudices
neither
tolerate
private
biases
may
outside
reach
law
law
directly
indirectly
give
effect
palmore
sidoti
matter
uncomfortable
certain
group
may
make
majority
held
ere
public
intolerance
animosity
constitutionally
justify
deprivation
person
physical
liberty
donaldson
see
also
cleburne
cleburne
living
center
dept
agriculture
moreno
justified
morally
neutral
exercise
georgia
power
protect
public
environment
paris
adult
theatre
certainly
private
behavior
affect
fabric
society
whole
reasonable
people
may
differ
whether
particular
sexual
acts
moral
immoral
ample
evidence
believing
people
abandon
morality
think
better
murder
cruelty
dishonesty
merely
private
sexual
practice
abominate
punished
law
hart
immorality
treason
reprinted
law
literature
ed
petitioner
fail
see
difference
laws
protect
public
sensibilities
enforce
private
morality
statutes
banning
public
sexual
activity
entirely
consistent
protecting
individual
liberty
interest
decisions
concerning
sexual
relations
recognition
decisions
intensely
private
justifies
protecting
governmental
interference
justify
protecting
individuals
unwilling
exposure
sexual
activities
others
mere
fact
intimate
behavior
may
punished
takes
place
public
dictate
regulate
intimate
behavior
occurs
intimate
places
see
paris
adult
theatre
marital
intercourse
street
corner
theater
stage
forbidden
despite
constitutional
protection
identified
griswold
connecticut
case
involves
real
interference
rights
others
mere
knowledge
individuals
adhere
one
value
system
legally
cognizable
interest
cf
diamond
charles
let
alone
interest
justify
invading
houses
hearts
minds
citizens
choose
live
lives
differently
iv
took
three
years
see
error
analysis
minersville
school
district
gobitis
recognize
threat
national
cohesion
posed
refusal
salute
flag
vastly
outweighed
threat
values
posed
compelling
salute
see
west
virginia
board
education
barnette
hope
soon
reconsider
analysis
conclude
depriving
individuals
right
choose
conduct
intimate
relationships
poses
far
greater
threat
values
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tolerance
nonconformity
ever
think
today
betrays
values
dissent
georgia
defined
sodomy
carnal
knowledge
connection
order
nature
man
man
unnatural
manner
woman
crim
code
thompson
aldredge
georgia
held
prohibit
lesbian
activity
riley
garrett
georgia
held
prohibit
heterosexual
cunnilingus
georgia
passed
statute
currently
force
perhaps
response
restrictive
decisions
riley
note
crimes
nature
pub
robinson
california
held
eighth
amendment
barred
convicting
defendant
due
status
narcotics
addict
since
condition
apparently
illness
may
contracted
innocently
involuntarily
powell
texas
refused
extend
robinson
punishment
public
drunkenness
chronic
alcoholic
one
factors
relied
justice
marshall
writing
plurality
opinion
texas
attempted
regulate
appellant
behavior
privacy
home
justice
white
wrote
separately
analysis
difficult
case
advanced
preoccupation
label
condition
robinson
dealt
statute
makes
status
narcotic
addiction
criminal
offense
precluding
criminal
conviction
status
dealing
condition
brought
acts
remote
time
application
criminal
sanctions
contemplated
condition
relatively
permanent
duration
condition
great
magnitude
significance
terms
human
behavior
values
necessary
distinguish
acts
conditions
purposes
eighth
amendment
adhere
concept
condition
implicit
opinion
robinson
proper
subject
inquiry
whether
volitional
acts
brought
condition
whether
acts
sufficiently
proximate
condition
permissible
impose
penal
sanctions
condition
despite
historical
views
homosexuality
longer
viewed
mental
health
professionals
disease
disorder
see
brief
american
psychological
association
american
public
health
association
amici
curiae
obviously
neither
simply
matter
deliberate
personal
election
homosexual
orientation
may
well
form
part
fiber
individual
personality
consequently
justice
white
analysis
powell
eighth
amendment
may
pose
constitutional
barrier
sending
individual
prison
acting
attraction
regardless
circumstances
individual
ability
make
constitutionally
protected
decisions
concerning
sexual
relations
carey
population
services
international
powell
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
rendered
empty
indeed
given
real
choice
life
without
physical
intimacy
respect
equal
protection
clause
applicability
note
georgia
exclusive
stress
interest
prosecuting
homosexual
activity
despite
terms
statute
may
raise
serious
questions
discriminatory
enforcement
questions
disposed
motion
dismiss
see
yick
wo
hopkins
legislature
decided
sex
participants
irrelevant
legality
acts
see
state
defend
ground
individuals
singled
prosecution
sex
partners
thus
circumstances
case
claim
equal
protection
clause
may
well
available
without
reach
controversial
question
whether
homosexuals
suspect
class
see
rowland
mad
river
local
school
district
brennan
dissenting
denial
certiorari
note
constitutional
status
sexual
orientation
homosexuality
suspect
classification
harv
rev
even
faced
challenge
apply
simple
scrutiny
statute
georgia
required
show
actual
connection
forbidden
acts
ill
effects
seeks
prevent
connection
acts
prohibited
harms
identified
petitioner
brief
subject
hot
dispute
hardly
amenable
dismissal
federal
rule
civil
procedure
compare
brief
petitioner
brief
david
robinson
amicus
curiae
one
hand
people
onofre
brief
attorney
general
state
new
york
joined
attorney
general
state
california
amici
curiae
brief
american
psychological
association
american
public
health
association
amici
curiae
although
think
necessary
decide
today
issues
even
remotely
us
seem
find
simple
analytically
sound
distinctions
certain
private
consensual
sexual
conduct
one
hand
adultery
incest
two
vaguely
specific
sexual
crimes
majority
points
ante
example
marriage
addition
spiritual
aspects
civil
contract
entitles
contracting
parties
variety
governmentally
provided
benefits
state
might
define
contractual
commitment
necessary
become
eligible
benefits
include
commitment
fidelity
punish
individuals
breaching
contract
moreover
state
might
conclude
adultery
likely
injure
third
persons
particular
spouses
children
persons
engage
extramarital
affairs
respect
incest
might
well
agree
respondent
nature
familial
relationships
renders
true
consent
incestuous
activity
sufficiently
problematical
blanket
prohibition
activity
warranted
see
tr
oral
arg
notably
makes
effort
explain
chosen
group
private
consensual
homosexual
activity
adultery
incest
rather
private
consensual
heterosexual
activity
unmarried
persons
indeed
oral
anal
sex
within
marriage
parallel
loving
case
almost
uncanny
state
relied
religious
justification
law
compare
quoting
trial
statement
almighty
god
created
races
white
black
yellow
malay
red
placed
separate
continents
fact
separated
races
shows
intend
races
mix
brief
petitioner
relying
old
new
testaments
writings
thomas
aquinas
show
traditional
values
proscribe
conduct
defenders
challenged
statute
relied
heavily
fact
fourteenth
amendment
ratified
similar
prohibitions
compare
brief
appellee
loving
virginia
pp
ante
time
case
came
many
still
criminal
statutes
concerning
conduct
issue
compare
noting
still
outlawed
interracial
marriage
ante
noting
district
columbia
sodomy
statutes
yet
held
invidious
racism
virginia
law
violated
equal
protection
clause
see
also
law
deprived
lovings
due
process
denying
freedom
choice
marry
long
recognized
one
vital
personal
rights
essential
orderly
pursuit
happiness
free
men
theological
nature
origin
antisodomy
statutes
patent
sodomy
made
secular
offense
england
hen
viii
ch
time
offense
sir
james
stephen
words
merely
ecclesiastical
stephen
history
criminal
law
england
pollock
maitland
similarly
observed
crime
nature
closely
connected
heresy
vulgar
one
name
pollock
maitland
history
english
law
transfer
jurisdiction
prosecutions
sodomy
secular
courts
seems
primarily
due
alteration
ecclesiastical
jurisdiction
attendant
england
break
roman
catholic
church
rather
new
understanding
sovereign
interest
preventing
punishing
behavior
involved
cf
coke
institutes
ch
ed
oral
argument
suggestion
appeared
fourth
amendment
special
protection
home
might
prevent
state
enforcing
individuals
engage
consensual
sexual
activity
protection
make
statute
invalid
see
tr
oral
arg
suggestion
misses
point
entirely
law
invalid
police
invade
home
enforce
provided
course
obtain
determination
probable
cause
neutral
magistrate
one
reasons
holding
griswold
connecticut
precisely
possibility
repugnance
permitting
searches
obtain
evidence
regarding
use
contraceptives
permitting
kinds
searches
might
necessary
obtain
evidence
sexual
activity
banned
seems
less
intrusive
repugnant
cf
winston
lee
mary
beth
city
chicago
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
like
statute
challenged
case
rationale
opinion
applies
equally
prohibited
conduct
regardless
whether
parties
engage
married
unmarried
different
sexes
sodomy
condemned
odious
sinful
type
behavior
formative
period
common
law
condemnation
equally
damning
heterosexual
homosexual
sodomy
moreover
provided
special
exemption
married
couples
license
cohabit
produce
legitimate
offspring
simply
include
permission
engage
sexual
conduct
considered
crime
nature
history
georgia
statute
us
clearly
reveals
traditional
prohibition
heterosexual
well
homosexual
sodomy
indeed
one
point
century
georgia
law
construed
permit
certain
sexual
conduct
homosexual
women
even
though
conduct
prohibited
heterosexuals
history
statutes
cited
majority
proof
proposition
sodomy
constitutionally
protected
ante
nn
similarly
reveals
prohibition
heterosexual
well
homosexual
sodomy
georgia
statute
expresses
traditional
view
sodomy
immoral
kind
conduct
regardless
identity
persons
engage
believe
proper
analysis
constitutionality
requires
consideration
two
questions
first
may
state
totally
prohibit
described
conduct
means
neutral
law
applying
without
exception
persons
subject
jurisdiction
may
state
save
statute
announcing
enforce
law
homosexuals
two
questions
merit
separate
discussion
prior
cases
make
two
propositions
abundantly
clear
first
fact
governing
majority
state
traditionally
viewed
particular
practice
immoral
sufficient
reason
upholding
law
prohibiting
practice
neither
history
tradition
save
law
prohibiting
miscegenation
constitutional
attack
second
individual
decisions
married
persons
concerning
intimacies
physical
relationship
even
intended
produce
offspring
form
liberty
protected
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
griswold
connecticut
moreover
protection
extends
intimate
choices
unmarried
well
married
persons
carey
population
services
international
eisenstadt
baird
consideration
claims
kind
emphasized
individual
interest
privacy
decisions
actually
animated
even
fundamental
concern
wrote
years
ago
cases
deal
individual
interest
protection
unwarranted
public
attention
comment
exploitation
deal
rather
individual
right
make
certain
unusually
important
decisions
affect
family
destiny
referred
decisions
implicating
basic
values
fundamental
dignified
history
tradition
character
language
cases
brings
mind
origins
american
heritage
freedom
abiding
interest
individual
liberty
makes
certain
state
intrusions
citizen
right
decide
live
life
intolerable
guided
history
tradition
respect
dignity
individual
choice
matters
conscience
restraints
implicit
federal
system
federal
judges
accepted
responsibility
recognition
protection
rights
appropriate
cases
fitzgerald
porter
memorial
hospital
footnotes
omitted
cert
denied
paradoxical
may
seem
prior
cases
thus
establish
state
may
prohibit
sodomy
within
sacred
precincts
marital
bedrooms
griswold
indeed
unmarried
heterosexual
adults
eisenstadt
events
perfectly
clear
state
georgia
may
totally
prohibit
conduct
proscribed
georgia
criminal
code
ii
georgia
statute
enforced
written
conduct
seeks
prohibit
protected
form
liberty
vast
majority
georgia
citizens
state
must
assume
burden
justifying
selective
application
law
either
persons
georgia
seeks
apply
statute
interest
liberty
others
must
reason
state
may
permitted
apply
generally
applicable
law
certain
persons
apply
others
first
possibility
plainly
unacceptable
although
meaning
principle
men
created
equal
always
clear
surely
must
mean
every
free
citizen
interest
liberty
members
majority
share
standpoint
individual
homosexual
heterosexual
interest
deciding
live
life
narrowly
conduct
personal
voluntary
associations
companions
state
intrusion
private
conduct
either
equally
burdensome
second
possibility
similarly
unacceptable
policy
selective
application
must
supported
neutral
legitimate
interest
something
substantial
habitual
dislike
ignorance
disfavored
group
neither
state
identified
interest
case
posited
justification
georgia
statute
presumed
belief
majority
electorate
georgia
homosexual
sodomy
immoral
unacceptable
ante
georgia
electorate
expressed
belief
instead
representatives
enacted
law
presumably
reflects
belief
sodomy
immoral
unacceptable
unless
prepared
conclude
law
constitutional
may
rely
work
product
georgia
legislature
support
holding
georgia
statute
single
homosexuals
separate
class
meriting
special
disfavored
treatment
indeed
georgia
prosecutor
even
believe
homosexuals
violate
statute
punished
conclusion
evident
fact
respondent
case
formally
acknowledged
complaint
engaged
intends
continue
engage
prohibited
conduct
yet
state
elected
process
criminal
charges
justice
powell
points
moreover
georgia
prohibition
private
consensual
sodomy
enforced
decades
record
nonenforcement
case
last
several
decades
belies
attorney
general
representations
importance
state
selective
application
generally
applicable
law
georgia
statute
georgia
prosecutor
thus
completely
fail
provide
support
conclusion
homosexual
sodomy
simpliciter
considered
unacceptable
conduct
state
burden
justifying
selective
application
generally
applicable
law
met
iii
orders
dismissal
respondent
complaint
even
though
state
statute
prohibits
sodomy
even
though
prohibition
concededly
unconstitutional
respect
heterosexuals
even
though
state
post
hoc
explanations
selective
application
belied
state
actions
least
think
clear
early
stage
litigation
respondent
alleged
constitutional
claim
sufficient
withstand
motion
dismiss
respectfully
dissent
see
code
ann
person
commits
offense
sodomy
performs
submits
sexual
act
involving
sex
organs
one
person
mouth
anus
another
issue
presented
whether
federal
constitution
confers
fundamental
right
upon
homosexuals
engage
sodomy
hence
invalidates
laws
many
still
make
conduct
illegal
done
long
time
ante
reality
however
indiscriminate
prohibition
sodomy
heterosexual
well
homosexual
present
long
time
see
nn
infra
moreover
reasoning
employs
provide
support
statute
written
statute
narrowly
construed
see
hawkins
pleas
crown
ed
unnatural
carnal
copulations
whether
man
beast
seem
come
notion
sodomy
felony
antient
common
law
punished
according
authors
burning
according
others
burying
alive
blackstone
commentaries
discussing
infamous
crime
nature
committed
either
man
beast
crime
strictly
impartially
proved
strictly
impartially
punished
see
east
pleas
crown
offence
concerning
least
notice
best
consists
carnal
knowledge
committed
order
nature
man
man
unnatural
manner
woman
man
woman
manner
beast
hawley
mcgregor
criminal
law
ed
sodomy
carnal
knowledge
order
nature
two
persons
human
beast
offense
may
committed
man
woman
two
male
persons
man
woman
beast
see
may
law
crimes
ed
sodomy
otherwise
called
buggery
bestiality
crime
nature
unnatural
copulation
two
persons
human
beast
may
committed
man
man
man
beast
woman
beast
man
woman
wife
case
consent
accomplice
predecessor
current
georgia
statute
provided
sodomy
carnal
knowledge
connection
order
nature
man
man
unnatural
manner
woman
code
tit
pt
prohibition
heterosexual
sodomy
purely
hortatory
see
comer
state
app
affirming
prosecution
consensual
heterosexual
sodomy
see
thompson
aldredge
review
statutes
cited
majority
discloses
today
vast
majority
sodomy
statutes
differentiate
homosexual
heterosexual
sodomy
see
loving
virginia
interestingly
miscegenation
treated
crime
similar
sodomy
see
hawley
mcgregor
criminal
law
discussing
crime
sodomy
discussing
crime
miscegenation
indeed
georgia
attorney
general
concedes
georgia
statute
unconstitutional
applied
married
couple
see
tr
oral
arg
stating
application
statute
married
couple
unconstitutional
right
marital
privacy
identified
griswold
significantly
georgia
passed
current
statute
three
years
decision
griswold
ante
powell
concurring
see
also
tr
oral
arg
argument
georgia
attorney
general
noting
response
question
prosecution
activity
took
place
private
residence
last
case
recall
back
course
possible
argue
statute
purely
symbolic
role
cf
carey
population
services
international
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
fact
state
admittedly
never
brought
prosecution
statute
consistent
appellants
position
purpose
statute
merely
symbolic
since
georgia
attorney
general
even
defend
statute
written
however
see
supra
state
possibly
rest
notion
statute
may
defended
symbolic
message
indeed
stage
appears
statute
indiscriminately
authorizes
policy
selective
prosecution
neither
limited
class
homosexual
persons
embraces
persons
class
rather
applies
may
arbitrarily
selected
prosecutor
reasons
revealed
either
record
case
text
statute
true
although
text
statute
clear
enough
true
meaning
may
intolerably
vague
evenhanded
enforcement
law
virtual
impossibility
marks
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part