Lawrence Vs. Texas

            
             Our basic freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution have been stripped away from some individuals because of their sexual preferences. The "fundamental rights- argument tracks a line of contraception and abortion cases, holding that certain intimate, private, family-related choices may be protected from state interference. The state has no legitimate right to interfere with the right of privacy; landmark cases have shown that our Constitution has become a "living Constitution,"" whether or not people like Justice Scalia like it or not. In Lawrence v. Texas, which proves that the Constitution is continually being re-interpreted by our Supreme Court System, shows this by overruling Bowers v. Hardwick and granting every individual the same rights to privacy as one another? Scalia insists that a liberty interest (under the fundamental-rights theory) needs to be "deeply rooted in tradition,"" and the mere fact that some of those state anti-gay laws have since been repealed doesn't guarantee a fundamental right. At the end of this paper, I will have shown that our Constitution affords us certain rights and freedoms that we take for granted, but others have to fight for just because they have a different sexual preference. My main concern here will be showing how Justice Scalia attempts to say "that it is alright to be gay, just as long as you don't have sexual intimacy with person of the same sex,"" which infringes on your right to privacy.
             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.