Lawrence v. Texas has been a landmark case concerning LGBTQ+ rights since 2003. // Photo courtesy of Christian Lue.

With bills surrounding LGBTQ+ rights like Florida’s HB 1557, colloquially known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, being passed in Florida and several other states, Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law welcomed Jordan Carr Peterson, a professor of public and international affairs at North Carolina State University, on Monday, April 11, to talk about his research of the aftermath of the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 and its real-life effects for the LGBTQ+ community.

 In the highlighted case, John Lawrence and co-defendant Tyron Garner were convicted of violating a “deviant sexual intercourse” statute in Texas when they were found engaging in sexual activity, which they appealed. They asked the Supreme Court to overturn the decision which set the precedent for the statute, Bowers v. Hardwick. The court decided that this statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, overturning “Bowers” to invalidate sodomy laws nationwide.

 This paved way for further change in the country. When the question of same-sex marriage came before the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas was repeatedly cited to underscore the notion that same-sex couples deserve the same rights in their personal lives as opposite-sex couples.

 Through his research, Peterson did an in-depth analysis of current laws across the nation and whether or not this criminal code actually adheres to a decision that was passed nearly two decades ago.

 “This research was inspired when I became aware that certain jurisdictions were not complying with what I saw as the core holding in Lawrence v. Texas,” Peterson said. “Namely, that laws prohibiting adults from finding sexual gratification and engaging in sexual conduct as they prefer –  so long as they don’t harm anyone – violate bedrock constitutional privileges related to individual liberty. I thus set out to document as thoroughly as possible … and the extent to which laws criminalizing consensual non-procreative intercourse (sodomy bans) are still being enforced.”

 Legislative change after the decision was not uniform across all 50 states. Some states, such as Alabama, Missouri, Utah and Virginia, appealed such sodomy laws almost immediately after the Lawrence decision was passed down by the Court, but other states such as Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas have still yet to do so. Therefore, sodomy is still a punishable offense in these states, criminalizing “consensual, non-procreative, private intercourse” between adults, according to Peterson. Additionally, sodomy exists as a registered sex offense in these states, putting into question whether the judicial action passed 20 years ago is really protecting people like it is supposed to.

 Jamin Enquist, a second-year law student and president of Outlaw, the LGBTQ organization at the Hofstra Law School, noted his gap in understanding of what happens in the years of legislation that follows landmark cases.

 “For me, it was about learning about the state of the laws and the attitude towards that decision and its effect on states that still have those [laws],” Enquist said. “I [wasn’t] aware of the post-decision impact related to which states currently have laws on the books that are still regulating sodomy.”

 Peterson stressed the importance of legislative remedies, in the form of voting for legislation and politicians that have the best interests of the LGBTQ community at heart, which Enquist echoed.

 “Be involved and aware of what’s going on at the local, state and national level,” Enquist said. “Support people who are going to overturn statutes that are outdated or in violation of certain legal decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas.”

 Marc Rosen, a second-year law student, addressed the collective consciousness of Hofstra’s student body, reminding everyone how it’s up to the current generation of students to pave way for future generations.

 “If you’re going to law school, earning this degree and practicing law, you have a moral and ethical duty to never enable this sort of behavior,” he said. “Never enable the prosecution of someone for something that should not be a crime.”