Facts:

Lawrence and Garner were having sexual relations when an officer arrived at
Lawrence's residence in response to a suspected firearms disturbance. Lawrence
and Garner were both detained and kept overnight by the police. A Justice of
the Peace in Texas later charged the two guys. Both contended that it violated
their right of equal protection under 14th Amendment of the US constitution.
Issues:
 Whether Petitioner's violate the Fourteenth Amendment of US which
guarantee the equal protection of the laws?
 Whether Petitioners' convictions for adult consenting sexual intercourse
violate their rights of liberty and privacy protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment ?
Rules:
14th Amendment of the US Constitution: it addresses the rights of the
citizen. “Equal protection of the laws” and protection of liberty of the
people. It talks that the state cannot violate the right to life, liberty or
property of the citizen except the due process of the law.
Analysis:
It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that two adults with their consent
may engage in sexual activity or intercourse in their private space.
Bowers v. Hardwick1 upheld a Georgia legislation that barred consensual,
private sodomy between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Bowers Court
erroneously framed the question as whether homosexuals had a constitutional
right to engage in sexual intercourse. This Court determined that a judgement
indicating that the right is not protected would have the same effect as
establishing whether or not homosexual relationships are permissible in general.
This decision would violate homosexuals' basic right to engage in family,
intimate, and personal relationships.
This Court determined that there is no historical precedence in America of
legislation forbidding specific homosexual activity. Furthermore, imposing
legal penalties for consensual behaviour would be extremely difficult.

1
478 U.S. 168 (1986)
The Bowers Court exaggerated the importance of historical traditions in
outlawing homosexual behaviour, which was most likely based on the religious
and moral views of each Justice.
This Court recognised that many states with laws forbidding
homosexual activity do not punish persons who participate in it. The outcome is
most likely a reflection of the increased societal and legal recognition of
consenting adults' and homosexuals' right to privacy. The Court cites Planned
Parenthood v. Casey2 as authority providing evidence of this tendency.
The Court ruled that consenting individuals' rights to engage in homosexual
behaviour are guaranteed by the substantive due process clause's liberty interest.
In this case, the sexual intercourse in question is protected by the Due Process
Clause, therefore Bowers is unconstitutional and overruled.
Dissenting Opinion:
The Majority's reasoning for rejecting the Texas Act is flawed. The statute
solely punishes homosexual behaviour and should be declared unlawful as a
breach of Equal Protection. 
Bowers should be treated with deference when it comes to the principles of
stare decisis. Furthermore, when making such a decision, the court shall not
consider popular opinion or foreign legislation.
Although the state statute is "uncommonly absurd" and should be abolished,
nothing in the Constitution or its Bill of Rights stops the state from passing the
law in question.
Conclusion
This is a landmark judgement in US which decriminalizes homosexual
behaviour or their sexual rights. It was held that the right of homogeneous or
heterogeneous to engage in sexual activity has been protected by the 14th
Amendment of the US Constitution. It was the Court's sombre warning that
criminalising homosexual activity is “an encouragement to expose homosexual
individuals to discrimination both in the public and private domains.”

2
505 U.S. 833 (1992)