Stone 1

Harper Stone
Elena Gonzales
Displaying Activism
4 April 2011

Redefining Equality: Queer Struggles for Civil Rights in a Bipartisan Context

The struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights has overcome significant political and social
challenges in the past fifty years. Starting with the Stonewall Riots in New York in 1969, gay
and lesbian people have affirmed their presence in society, choosing to stand together publicly in
order to pursue equal rights and equal treatment under the law. Change for queer rights has been
most powerful recently in key areas of rights legislation and judicial action: the repeal of sodomy
laws and the fight for same-sex marriage. Legislators in both areas have faced significant barriers
on the path to change and acceptance in society, mirroring earlier battles for civil rights
legislation for African Americans. For gays and lesbians, this struggle for civil rights is a social
movement which requires legislative or judicial action to implement, and is therefore liberal;
however, it is also intensely conservative, as it calls for less government action within homes,
enforcing the idea that the government can neither define how its citizens define a family, nor
what two consenting adults choose to do in their own bedroom. The history of this social
movement builds upon itself to foster each new success in this struggle. This paper will trace the
path of sodomy law reform in the United States, emphasizing the specific wording of each major
piece of legislation or judicial reform, the wording of which will eventually open the door to
same-sex marriage legislation. Additionally, this paper also mirrors the movements demonstrated
throughout the accompanying exhibit, “Activism: Methods for Achieving Equity.”
It is fundamentally important to this paper to understand what it means for the gay and
lesbian movement to be a social movement, rather than solely a political one. Social movements
can be defined as movements that focus on a specific ideology, with multiple leaders who
overlap in both social and political spheres. Additionally, with no distinct political leaders, it is
the individuals and groups who choose to stand up for what they believe in(the Stonewall rioters,
for example,) who offer leadership to the movement. Similarly, those persecuted under unjust
laws also serve to fulfill this role of leadership.
 Stone 2

Social movements also push to represent the identity of a social group, and the group
consciousness.1 Group consciousness is a large part of this struggle, as the term represents the
presence of an identity for gay and lesbian men and women in the United States. Instead of
perceiving this movement to just be about a vote, the basis of the civil rights nature of this case
lies in the social and political identity of an entire group of people. Stated another way, the gay
and lesbian movement is identity driven, and not solely inherently political. This further adds to
the definition of a social movement. Queers have sought group consciousness, as they fought
most notably against sodomy laws for the right to love whom they those to love without fear of
persecution; hence, the right to exist as a group without legal ramifications.
Perhaps the most damaging of all legislature restricting gay and lesbian people, sodomy
laws serve to not only inhibit the rights of individuals within the bedroom, but as examined in the
definition of a social movement, enable the discrimination of a group of people based on the
fundamental idea that they are not permitted to legally exist. Sodomy laws were not created
initially to strictly prohibit homosexuality in society. The law does not discriminate solely
against homosexuals, but rather criminalizes sodomy in all relationships. In fact, both
heterosexual and homosexual sodomy law roots trace back to Puritan times; to be convicted of
sodomy would mean to be put to death in most situations.2 Thomas Jefferson tried to repeal such
a harsh punishment in 1778 when he attempted to replace Virginia’s death sentence for sodomy
with, “if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one
half inch diameter at the least.”3 Although this hardly counts as decriminalization of sodomy, it
is notably one of the first attempts for lesser punishment.
Before the 1970s, forty-nine out of fifty states in the US had laws criminalizing both
homosexual and heterosexual sodomy.4 At the same time, the climate for gay and lesbian people
was not without prejudice. As “sodomy” constituted primary sex acts for both gay and lesbian
people within their relationships, known gay and lesbian people were labeled as federal
offenders, even if they were not convicted under sodomy laws. The result of which was that out
                                                                                                               
1
Craig A. Rimmerman The Lesbian and Gay Movements (Colorado: Westview Press, 2008), 6.
2
“The History of Sodomy Laws,” George Painter, accessed March 25, 2011,
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/introduction.htm#fn1.
3
“A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments,” Thomas Jefferson, accessed March 25th, 2011, http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html.
4
Ellen Ann Anderson, Out of the Closets and Into the Courts (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2008), 17-
18.
 Stone 3

gay and lesbian people were discriminated against in “multiple domains, including employment,
military service, housing, public accommodations, immigration, speech and association, custody,
adoption, marriage, and the provision of government benefits.”4 Further, during the McCarthy
hearings in the 1950’s, a period of heightened United States security against potential communist
threats both at home and abroad, homosexuals were considered “unsuitable for government
service because the criminality of sodomy both revealed their ‘low morality’ and made them
susceptible to blackmail.”5 In all areas of their lives, both gay and lesbian people faced strong
social discrimination that the presence of sodomy laws, which criminalized their private sexual
behavior, aided.
The right to privacy within the home has long been disputed for again, both homosexual and
heterosexual residents. In 1965, the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, the
liberal justices ruling that the government could not interfere in the private sexual practices of
heterosexual couples. The exact working related to the use of contraceptives by married couples,
and stated that the current discriminatory statue “operated ‘directly on an intimated relationship
of husband and wife’ (Griswold, 482,) thereby violating a fundamental right of privacy that
existed in the penumbras of various guarantees of the Bill of Rights.” 6
This ruling opened the door to the conservative idea that what occurs in the bedroom of two
consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, may also fall under this fundamental
right of privacy, therefore nullifying all sodomy laws. Griswald v. Connecticut was the
beginning of a movement that created a period of change relating to sodomy laws through 2003.
During this time, states repealed their sodomy laws completely, repealed heterosexual statutes,
or, in a few instances, instigated no change to their sodomy laws. One of the first ramifications of
this case was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU,) who previously found no
grounds on which to dispute sodomy laws, declared a change in their policy, stating in 1967 that
“The criminalization of private, consensual sexual activities between adults…constituted an
impermissible infringement on the fundamental right to privacy.” 7
The next stepping-stone to complete reform of sodomy laws took place in a small bar in New
York in the early morning of June 28th, 1969. Police raided The Stonewall Inn, a popular bar for
homosexuals in the area. Rather than the typical exchange of money for fines and quick exits
                                                                                                               
5  Anderson,
Out of the Closets, 58.
6  Anderson,
Out of the Closets, 20-22.
7
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 22.
 Stone 4

from the area, the patrons stayed to fight the police for their right to association. One patron
remembers the event this way:
“So I was drinking at the [Stonewall Inn], and the police came in to get their payoff
as usual…. I don’t know if it was the customers or if it was the police, but that night
everything just clicked. Everybody was like, ‘What the fuck are we doing all this
for? Why should we be chastised? Why do we have to pay the Mafia all this kind of
money to drink in a lousy fuckin’ bar? And still be harassed by the police?’ It didn’t
make any sense.” 8
The Stonewall Riot revolutionized and expedited the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. In
the period from 1969 to 1984, twenty-five states repealed the sodomy laws for both heterosexual
and homosexual couples.9 Additionally, Model Penal Codes, which updated state codes on a
variety of criminal violations, also included repeals in many states for sodomy laws. For many
gay and lesbian citizens, it seemed as though the era of sodomy laws, one area through which
legislature openly criminalized queer people, was finally coming to an end.
Unfortunately this was not yet the case, as sodomy law violators still faced persecution,
even within the privacy of their own dwellings. In 1986 in the state of Georgia, Michael
Hardwick was arrested under the state’s sodomy law for performing sodomy within his own
home. Police entered Hardwick’s home after being invited in by another resident who directed
them to Hardwick’s room, under the understanding that Hardwick was being questioned about a
public drinking ticket, which he had actually already cleared. The first sodomy case in the state
of Georgia in nearly fifty years, Hardwick offered for both the ACLU and Lambda Legal an
opportunity to overthrow discriminatory legislature in Georgia. If the case were won, twenty-six
states would have to repeal their sodomy laws. 10
The Supreme Court in Georgia upheld the state’s sodomy law by a vote of 5-4. “It is
obvious to us,” wrote the Supreme Court Justices,
“that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to
engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient
roots…. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is

                                                                                                               
8
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 23.
9  Anderson, Out of the Closets, 61.  
10
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 92.
 Stone 5

‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty’ is, at best, facetious.” 11
The immediate impact of Bowers, other than to recriminalize sodomy and therefore provide the
nation a legal statute through which to discriminate against gay and lesbian people once again,
was to start a rise in the repeal of only heterosexual wording of sodomy laws in states. Ironically,
the conservative justices in this case ruled against a traditionally conservative value: to keep the
government out of the home, and for less government regulation, rather than more.
Further, the Bowers loss instigated a time in which some states attempted to legally
discriminate against their citizens in other ways. For example, most notably, Colorado attempted
to pass Amendment 2 in 1992. It stated that,
“No Protected Status based on homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments…. shall
enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships
shall constitute or…. entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.” 12
The idea behind this legislation was simple, and clearly linked to the Bowers legislation. If
sodomy is illegal, how could a state provide a protected status for those who likely practice
sodomy? David Richards, an expert on gay and lesbian legislation, stated that, “if the conduct
central to a group’s identity could be criminal, then it seemed reasonable that a state, which
could constitutionally forbid such conduct, might take the less restrictive option of not
criminalizing it but discouraging its public acceptability by forbidding any protections of gay and
lesbian people from people’s desire not to associate with them.” 13 Hence, with the Bowers
ruling, it was once again permissible to not only criminalize gay and lesbian conduct, but also to
limit their legal protection in all areas of their lives.
The fight against sodomy laws continued when Richard Evans sued the state of Colorado
in 1994 stating that he was being discriminated against under the nations Equal Protection laws.

                                                                                                               
11
“Bowers vs. Hardwick,” US Supreme Court, accessed March 26th 2011,
http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/case.html
12
“Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, v. Richard Evans,” US Supreme Court, Accessed March 26th, 2011,
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
13
David Richards, The Case for Gay Rights: From Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond, (Kansas: University of Kansas
Press, 2005), 91.
 Stone 6

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996, with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion of the court, in favor
of Evans. The court stated,
“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper
legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A
State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the
Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is
affirmed.” 8
With the repeal of the Colorado Amendment came a rise in the number of states that chose to
repeal not only the heterosexual but also homosexual clauses of their states’ sodomy laws. In this
repeal, it was a combination of both liberal and conservative judiciary beliefs that helped to
overturn the statute, although neither were likely focused on the implications of the sodomy laws
in other states that the repeal could likely have.
Support for overturning sodomy laws suddenly became a national issue for many civil
rights organizations. Lambda Legal’s (one of the original legal support resources for gay and
lesbian people) board of directors stated that “overturning…. sodomy laws” was the group’s
highest priority.14 For nearly seventeen years after Bowers, the battle raged on between civil
rights groups and their religiously traditionally foes, who often sought to continue the
implementation of criminalizing sodomy laws in states. However, in 2003, the state of Texas saw
Lawrence vs. Texas, a case relating to two men who were arrested after committing consensual
acts of sodomy within their own home. The court ruled in favor of Lawrence in the case, making
the case the defining case in the repeal of sodomy laws in the United States. 15 With Lawrence’s
victory, the remaining thirteen states with sodomy laws in the United States against homosexuals
had their law repealed.16
The exact wording of Lawrence states that, “The liberty protected by the Constitution
allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their
homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” 17 Interestingly,
Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion chose, “not to strike down the Texas statute on equal-
protection grounds…. Because it would leave open the possibility that the conduct might be
                                                                                                               
14
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 32.
15
Rimmerman Movements, 108.
16  Anderson, Out of the Closets, 98.  
17
“Lawrence et al. vs. Texas,” US Supreme Court, Accessed March 27th, 2011,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html    
 Stone 7

criminal, which would invite unjust discrimination…. And not address the constitutional evil of
Bowers itself.” 18 This is important to understanding the ramifications of the case, as it ties into
the grounds on which the entire case was based. While liberals saw the case as fundamentally
necessary to win for the pursuit of civil rights for gay and lesbian people, conservatives who
supported Lawrence in the case saw it as a case for privacy of sexual acts within the home,
refusing to let the government once again legislate what two consenting adults may or may not
do within their own bedroom.
Many of the parties who see the fight for gay marriage as a fight for civil rights do so for
two reasons. First, in mirroring the Civil Rights movement for African Americans in the United
States, individuals were denied the right to have equal access to resources under the law, even
under “separate but equal” policies. This can be understood today as a reflection of civil union or
domestic partnership laws; civil rights advocators have since learned that separate can never be
equal. Second, by denying the right of marriage to certain citizens but not others, the United
States creates a class of second-class citizens, which under the Equal Protection Amendment it
may not do.
With this in mind, it is evident were Lawrence required privacy in the home, no different
from heterosexuals under the same law, that privacy is quite conservative; and yet, because of
the nature of the social movement, it is also inherently liberal. Only with an understanding of
both conservative and liberal stances by Justice Kennedy could this law have been successfully
repealed, with no future worry relating to loopholes, especially when in fear of other
conservatives stances relating to the morally unchristian sexual nature of sodomy. This distinct
wording of Lawrence also rekindled the spark for the potential for same-sex marriage within the
United States, stating that it was not feasible to discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens
based on their sexuality. Sodomy had been decriminalized and privacy ensued regardless of
sexual orientation between consenting adults within the home.
Gay marriage first came to the courtroom in 1972, when Richard Baker and Gerald
Nelson filed that to be prohibited from marrying in Minnesota was to discriminate against their
constitutional rights.19 Baker and Nelson lost the case, with the court stating that it was not
unconstitutional as, “by definition, marriage could only occur between one man and one

                                                                                                               
18  Rimmerman,  Movements,  109.  
19
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 175.
 Stone 8

woman.”13 This original definition of marriage was a quite conservative stance as it was both
traditional in the United States and morally conservative, but one to be expected from a country
who was only three years past Stonewall at that time.
After Bowers in 1986, it seemed nearly impossible to gay rights activists that they would
successfully fight for same-sex marriage. Similar to the question raised in the Colorado
Amendment 2, activists wondered how to make a case for marriage for same-sex couples when
sodomy still permitted open discrimination and criminalization of gay and lesbian citizens.
Marriage was brought to the table repeatedly in a variety of states from 1993 through
1999. First, Hawaii in 1993 decided Baehr vs. Lewin, making Hawaii “the first court in the
nation to treat seriously the claim that same-sex couples had a constitutional interest in marrying
each other.” 20 The case was filed becaus of the ambiguity of Hawaii’s statute in defining
marriage as not strictly between one man and one woman, and as such, as a potential sex
discrimination case. However, in the days before the Baehr trial, the federal government and
then-President Bill Clinton signed into action the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that
marriage was to be federally recognized as between one man and one woman. Baehr then went
to trial and Baehr eventually lost. The loss spurred the Hawaii congress into action, as it quickly
signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.21
Still under the Bowers legislation, one final case came to trial: Baker vs. Vermont in
1999. This case, considered the most remarkable of the time, created the passage of the Civil
Unions Act on July 1st, 2000. Many gay rights activists see this as a “separate but equal” bill, a
mirror image solely played out in the realm of marriage of Jim Crow laws during the 1950’s and
60’s for African Americans. These laws for African American’s turned out to be incredibly
inhibitory, and were eventually repealed, as the nation’s government came to an understanding
that separate could never be equal. At the same time, this bill offers civil unions for gay and
lesbian couples, which will hopefully play out to be a mere stepping stone towards eventually
gay marriage within the state. 22
Looking back again at legislation that repealed sodomy laws in the United States, there is
a straightforward connection between the wording in specific pieces of legislation and the
potential for same sex marriage. In 2003, Lawrence vs. Texas decriminalized sodomy in July,
                                                                                                               
20
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 178.    
21
Anderson, Out of the Closets, 180.
22  Anderson, Out of the Closets, 185.  
 Stone 9

with this particular wording from the dissenting Justice Scalia: “This reasoning leaves on pretty
shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples” 23 and again later in the
document, “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal
recognition in marriage is concerned.” 24 Both comments suggest that in overturning sodomy
laws under the Equal Protection status allotted by the fourteenth amendment of the United States
Constitution would therefore allow for the eventual passage of same-sex marriages.
Just four months later, Justice Scalia’s fears became a reality when in the case of
Goodridge vs. Department of Health, Massachusetts became the first state to permit same-sex
marriage. As of March 2011, five states have since ratified same-sex marriage into their states
constitutions, those being Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, in
addition to Washington D.C.25 This exhibit also includes a variety of resources from Rhode
Island’s own fight for same-sex marriage, most notably from Marriage Equality Rhode Island.
With the inclusion of gay marriage into many states’ political agendas, and with gay
activists and allies heavily pushing for gay marriage in a variety of states, conservative voters
have come to a fork in their political road: to vote with values that reflect a “traditional” family
setting, or to vote with traditional conservative political values?
Anita Bryant, the face of Florida Orange Juice and the Runner-up of the Miss America
competition, started a radical and vocal “Save the Children” (from homosexuality) campaign in
the 1970’s exemplified to conservative voters the moral flaws of homosexuality in a society. 26
Deemed to be close to a sociopathic indulgence by Ms. Bryant and her supporters, pamphlets
distributed by Ms. Bryant (most notably the “Purple Pamphlets” within Florida,) contained
explicit propaganda. One pamphlet stated that
“there is a tendency to lump together the homosexuals who seek out youth and the child
molesters. To most people the child molester seems to pose the greatest threat to
27
society…The homosexual’s goal... Is to ‘bring over’ the young person.”
                                                                                                               
23  Richards, The Case for Gay Rights, 129.  
24  Rimmerman, Movements, 109.  
25  “Winning the Freedom to Marry,” Freedom to Marry, Accessed March 27th 2011,
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/.
26  Anderson, Out of the Closets, 35.
27  “Purple Pamphlet” Florida Heritage Collection, Accessed March 27th, 2011, http://fulltext.fcla.edu/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=fhp&idno=UF00004805&format=pdf.
 Stone 10

It is important to understand the far-reaching work of Ms. Bryant during her tenure during the
1970’s and 80’s, as she embodies the extreme right-wing, “Christian” viewpoint of
homosexuality (the term “Christian” here is quoted as an understanding that there are a variety of
Christian view points on the stance of homosexuality; unfortunately, the loudest are usually
closely linked with extreme right-wing individuals.) For conservatives who believe in this threat
of both child molestation and conversion to homosexuality, the homosexual is unnatural, and not
to be entrusted as an equal citizen, with the attendant privileges to marry and adopt children.
President Bush had his own morally conservative stance on same-sex marriage during his
tenure as US President. Bush enacted “Marriage Protection Week” in 2003, glorifying the
Defense of Marriage Act, both of which are ironically named in that the so called “Defense of
Marriage Act” technically limits the number of marriages in the United States, and insofar as
Bush never quite defined what marriage was being protected from.28 The Log Cabin Republicans
are a group of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Republicans. The group’s executive director, Patrick
Guerriero, commented on Bush’s stance on gay marriage: “We are very disappointed to see Bush
catering to the extraordinary hypocrisy of the anti-marriage groups, which call themselves pro-
family and then go around encouraging discrimination against gay and lesbian families.” 29 This
type of political flip-flopping from Bush was similar to the McCarthy era discrimination against
gays and lesbians accused of being communists because of their sexuality. With no actual factual
reasoning for his political view discriminating against marriage for gay and lesbian people (as
McCarthy had no factual reasoning for his view discriminating against work in government
agencies for gay and lesbian people,) Bush sought to nonetheless prohibit thousands of
Americans from marrying, a view oftentimes reflected in his personal religion. (Of course, for
Bush to bring his own religious views into a country that separates church and state would be in
violation of judicial proceedings from the Supreme Court of the US dating from as early on as
1878.)
The type of political stance Bush represented during his time as President perfectly
portrays the moral side of the debate relating to same-sex marriage for conservatives. His
positions, as seen above, stood to fight against same-sex marriage on the basis of the
deconstruction of the traditional familial structure. However, other conservatives argue in favor

                                                                                                               
28  Rimmerman, Movements, 111.
29  Rimmerman, Movements, 112.  
 Stone 11

same-sex marriage because of the traditional conservative values it would uphold. First, married
couples in the United States are taxed less than two individuals filing separately, reducing the tax
burden on working couples and families. Second, government restrictions, should the Defense of
Marriage Act be repealed and same-sex marriage be accepted federally, would disappear for
couples. This would keep the government out of the home and certifying the legal right of both
Equal Protection under the law, as well as repealing a likely unconstitutional DOMA.
On this, it is notable that DOMA has been debated as unconstitutional since it became
federal law in 1996. One source states that, similar to the stricken Colorado Amendment 2,
DOMA “‘identifies person by a single trait (membership in a same-sex marriage) and then denies
them protection across the board.’ Congress does not seem to have given any specific
consideration to the broad range of federal policies to which spousal status is relevant, or to have
made any effort to justify the numerous specific disabilities that the statute imposed.” 30
Further more, this branch of conservative voters also recognizes that marriage in this case
would serve to stabilize the current status of marriage, rather than to destabilize the institution of
marriage as it is now known. Jonathan Rauch, a proponent of this stance, states that, “Far from
opening the door to all sorts of scary redefinitions of marriage, from polygamy to incest to who
knows what, same sex marriage is the surest way to shut that door…. Same-sex marriage, if
properly implemented, can make the country both better unified and truer to its ideals.” 31 In both
of the aforementioned viewpoints, conservative voters will definitely have to make their choice
between viewpoints in the future, as it would seem impossible to hold on to both conservative
views on the issue of same-sex marriage.
In understanding the above dichotomy, it is also important to understand the role that
these two paths play in establishing a tolerant political environment; that is, one in which
tolerance is the first step towards creating an environment in which diversity is not only valued,
it is ultimately essential to represent all types of people. In Massachusetts, the victory in
Goodridge vs. Department of Health would not have been possible had an unthreatened majority,
one seemingly less concerned about the moral ramifications on the family, been threatened by
the case. This simply means that the state of Massachusetts did not believe that by allowing gay
marriage, heterosexual marriages would meet their demise. Gary Mucciaroni, an expert on same-
                                                                                                               
30  Mark Strasser. Defending Same-Sex Marriage: “Separate But Equal” No More. (Connecticut: Library of
Congress, 2007) 150.  
31  Rimmerman,  Movements,  122.    
 Stone 12

sex politics, states that “In short, a threatened majority is more likely to act quickly to protect its
on perceived self-interest than an unthreatened majority is to protect the interests of a minority.”
32
This was certainly the case in Massachusetts.
Furthermore, that the Goodridge argument asked that “(1) these couples should have an
equal ability to marry the person they love; and [that] (2) liberty and due process of law means
that the couples should be free to make this choice- a life defining and critical choice- without
government interference and on the same terms applied to others.” 33 This wording appeals
directly to the conservative political view described above, eliminating government interference
within the home. In conclusion of this point, David Richards, an author previously quoted in this
paper, states on the matter, “Love is a human right if anything is a human right, and it seems to
me that what makes respect for human rights so valuable as a constitutional tradition is that it
extends, on terms of principle, such respect to all persons equally, irrespective of popular
prejudices.” 34 Richards suggests, in defiance of the conservative moral prejudice, it is love and
therefore the potential for marriage in society that must retain its constitutional equality in all
realms of jurisdiction.
This paper has demonstrated the building civil rights movement from the context of
sodomy law reform. Further, it has also shown how specific cases and legislation fighting
sodomy laws provided wording which has since opened the door to same-sex marriage
legislation. While much of the legislation and judicial decisions have come under the
understanding of liberal necessity of government intervention in an area of discrimination,
traditional conservative stances have also prevailed in creating a less significant government
force within homes, both in defining what two consenting adults can do in their own home, as
well as in defining what constitutes a family in society. Challenges to the movement have come
from traditional conservative moral stances, all of which have been overturned. This has
occurred most notably in Romer vs. Evans, Lawrence vs. Texas, and Goodridge vs. Dept. of
Health in pursuit of legislative action that stops the creation of a group of second class United
States citizens and instead, provides the protection entitled to all citizens under the Fourteenth
Amendment, certifying equal care for all.

                                                                                                               
32  Gary Mucciaroni, Same Sex Different Politics, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008) 237.
33  Strasser, Defending Same-Sex, 8.
34  Richards, The Case for Gay Rights, 134.  
 Stone 13

Bibliography

Anderson, Ellen A. Out of the Closets and Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay
Rights Litigation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
Strasser, Mark, ed. Defending Same-Sex Marriage. Westport, CT: Library of Congress,
2007.
Florida Heritage Collection, “Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida.”
1964. http://fulltext.fcla.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=fhp&idn...(accessed Mar. 27, 2011).
Freedom to Marry, “Winning the Freedom to Marry: Progress in the States.”
2011. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/. (accessed Mar. 27, 2011).
Jefferson, Thomas. “A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments.” 1778.
http://http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documen...(accessed Mar. 25, 2011).
Mucciaroni, Gary. Same Sex Different Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Painter, George. “The History of Sodomy Laws.”
2005.http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/introduc...(accessed Mar. 25, 2011).
Richards, David A.J.. The Case for Gay Rights: From Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond.
Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Rimmerman, Craig A. The Lesbian and Gay Movements. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2008.
US Supreme Court, “Bowers vs. Hardwick on Justia.”
1986.http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/case.html (accessed Mar. 26, 2011).
US Supreme Court, “Lawrence et. al. vs. Texas.” 27 Mar.
2003.http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html (accessed Mar. 26, 2011).
US Supreme Court, “ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, v. RICHARD G. EVANS.”
20 May 1996.http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/r... (accessed Mar. 26,
2011).