Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T05:13:24.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State in the Bedroom: What Some Adults May Not Do Privately After Hardwick v Bowers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

A. S. Cohan
A. S. Cohan
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Commerce, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The development and evolution since 1965 of a legally recognized right of privacy through decisions reached by the Supreme Court in the United States may be seen as evidence of one of two things. It represents either the Supreme Court's further usurpation of the authority of legislatures by its expansion of rights — areas never intended by the framers of the Constitution — or it demonstrates the creativity and sensitivity of Justices of the Court in finally making explicit what has been implicit in the broad language of the Constitution, namely, that a right of privacy has always belonged to the citizen. Whichever position one holds, there may be little doubt that the Court's excursion into this previously uncharted territory, with its subsequent “stops” along the journey at questions of contraception, abortion and, of concern in this essay, “unnatural” sexual acts, has given rise to considerable controversy and, in some instances, confusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , April 1989 , pp. 41 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Cohan, A. S., “Obstacles to Equality: Government Responses to the Gay Rights Movement in the United States,” Political Studies, 30 (1982), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Rubin, Eva, Abortion, Politics and the Courts: Roe v Wade and its Aftermath (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982).Google Scholar See also Cohan, A. S., “No Legal Impediment: Access to Abortion in the United States,” Journal of American Studies, 20, 2 (1986), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3 See, for example, Gaylord v Tacoma School District (435 U.S. 879, 1977)Google Scholar, Gish v Board of Education (434, U.S. 879, 1977)Google Scholar, Acanfora v Board of Education of Montgomery County (498, F. 2d 498, 1974)Google Scholar, and Aumiller v University of Delaware (434 F. Supp. 1273, 1977).Google Scholar

4 See, for example, Gayer v Schlesinger (490 F. Supp. 740, 1973)Google Scholar and Matlovich v Secretary of Air Force, 13Google ScholarFEP Cases, 267 and 269).Google Scholar

5 See D'Emilio, John, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Marotta, Toby, The Politics of Homosexuality (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981)Google Scholar; and Katz, Jonathan, Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S. (New York: Avon Books, 1976).Google Scholar

6 D'Emilio, John, 33.Google Scholar

7 Katz, Jonathon, 139–95.Google Scholar

8 72, University of Michigan Law Review, 1613 (1975), 1637Google Scholar, no author cited.

9 The Eighth Amendment says, “Excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

10 Forster, E. M., Maurice (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 221–22.Google Scholar

11 Black, David, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, the Epidemic of our Times (London: Pan Books), 16.Google Scholar

12 Goldberg, Arthur, Equal Justice: The Warren Era on the Supreme Court (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1971), 49–50.Google Scholar