In this installment of "From Sex to Marriage: How We Got From Lawrence v. Texas to the Cases Against DOMA and Prop 8," Roger Poindexter, Regional Director for Lambda Legal’s South Central Regional Office in Dallas, reflects on what it was like living in Texas before and after the historic decision.
In this installment of "From Sex to Marriage: How We Got From Lawrence v. Texas to the Cases Against DOMA and Prop 8," Ruth Harlow, former Legal Director for Lambda Legal, discusses our legal strategy on the landmark case.
In this installment of "From Sex to Marriage: How We Got From Lawrence v. Texas to the Cases Against DOMA and Prop 8," we talk with Mitchell Katine, an attorney in private practice who received the phone call that set the Lawrence case in motion.
On the tenth anniversary of Lambda Legal's historic victory in Lawrence v. Texas, we invite some of the key players to discuss the case and its impact on the marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court.
Listen in as Lambda Legal experts and former staffers discuss the importance of Lawrence v. Texas on the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision, and its impact on the marriage cases currently before the Court.
Where were you, nine years ago today, when the Supreme Court finally held that state laws criminalizing private sexual intimacy among consenting adults were unconstitutional in Lambda Legal’s historic victory,Lawrence v. Texas?
I was sitting in the gallery with the Lambda Legal lawyers who had brilliantly brought us to this dramatic moment. Our clients John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were home in Texas, waiting to hear whether their courageous stand against injustice had paid off.
Nine years after the historic Supreme Court decision in Lambda Legal’s case Lawrence v. Texas, the biggest victory for LGBT rights is back in the news, and we want to make sure you know all about it.
Susan Sommer, Associate Legal Director and Director of Constitutional Litigation
Dale Carpenter’s new book, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas, refocuses much-deserved attention on the Supreme Court’s stunning 2003 ruling.
