Talk:Bowers v. Hardwick
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Cause of Arrest
I'm taking a Law class and my professor contends that Bowers was arrested due to unpaid parking tickets, not due to public drunkenness.
I've just read in Peter Irons "The Courage of Their Convictions" it was failure to appear in court for drinking in public.CLaplante
-- I was also curious about the cause of arrest issue. The Supreme Court case itself says nothing on the issue. I was hoping to get to the bottom of it, but the smell of bias in the initial fact pattern has me questioning this article's portrayal. While I have no knowledge one way or the other, at the very least it'd be nice to see a cite to support the fact pattern set forth in the article. Apc7a (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some Answers to the Above, Then "Aftermath" Section Problems
- Suggested reading is the USSC cases from 1986. There is nothing like studying the opinions first hand. You will find all answers there. I'd like to post what I recall when I read this case in full, to see if it helps. Excuse my quick-and-easy layman terminology. The deputy was stated in the opinion to have been allowed entry into Hardwick's apartment by the landlady. It was for the purpose of serving papers. This is the time when said deputy caught Hardwick in flagrante delicto as it were.
- As to the Aftermath section, I have to say it is very badly and unprofessionally written. This case was decided purely (by the majority) on the basis of homophobia--and the majority opinion states this clearly. There was no aftermath per se other than the people saying the USSC had declared homosexuals exempt from Constitutional protection of any kind. See Rhenquist's opinion for language even worse than the aftermath section. As for true aftermath, well, the ruling opened every homphobic door there was in this nation. Other enlightened nations laughed at us.22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to revert  because I believe that the overturn of this ruling is a central aspect of a contemporary neutral discussion of it, and therefore per WP:MOSBEGIN, it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. To avoid edit warring I won't revert again if it's re-removed, without first seeking further discussion here. But if someone decides to remove the info again, they should explain their reasoning. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I see now, the version I reverted said "later overturned", and I mis-read the diff. I still prefer my version but the info is at least present in both. A phrasing that just said "overturned in 2003" would IMHO be fine if there's a way to make it flow. Sticking it into the previous existing wording just seems a bit awkward, so I've left in the added sentence explicitly mentioning Lawrence. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The details (Lawrence and 2003) are already mentioned later in the entry's summary and should not be mentioned twice in what is, after all, a summary of the body of the entry. And where the detail is provided later, there is much more detail, like 40+ words. Nor should the Lawrence decision be wikilinked twice. The fact that the decision was overturned is significant, I agree, and a heads-up to the reader is in order in the lede, but the detail is not significant at that point. I took your suggestion on phrasing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)