Marital privacy

Last updated

Marital privacy is the legally protected right of married individuals to privacy with regard to their relationship, within certain limits.

By country

Ireland

In Ireland, in McGee v. The Attorney General , Article 40(3) and Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland were cited as the basis for a claim to marital privacy. [1]

United States

Under the old common law, judges insisted that a husband had a legal prerogative to beat his wife. This changed during the Reconstruction Era, when judges instead spoke of a "curtain" protecting marital privacy, that should not be disturbed by the courts except in extreme cases. Reva Siegel notes, "Jurists reasoning in this discourse of 'affective privacy' progressively abandoned tropes of hierarchy and began to employ tropes of interiority to describe the marriage relationship, justifying the new regime of common law immunity rules in languages that invoked the feelings and spaces of domesticity." [2]

In State v. Oliver , for example, the court ruled, "If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive." Likewise, in State v. Rhodes , the court found: [3]

Our conclusion is that family government is recognized by law as being as complete in itself as the State government is in itself, and yet subordinate to it; and that we will not interfere with or attempt to control it, in favor of either husband or wife, unless in cases where permanent or malicious injury is inflicted or threatened, or the condition of the party is intolerable. For, however great are the evils of ill temper, quarrels, and even personal conflicts inflicting only temporary pain, they are not comparable with the evils which would result from raising the curtain, and exposing to public curiosity and criticism, the nursery and the bed chamber.

Marital privacy was recognized in Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman , arguing against "the intrusion of the whole machinery of the criminal law into the very heart of marital privacy requiring husband and wife to render account before a criminal tribunal of their uses of that intimacy". These views were accepted by the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut , [4] in which Justice Douglas wrote, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Goldberg's concurrence expressed similar sentiments.

According to Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs of the National Review , after Griswold, "the Supreme Court soon transformed the 'right to privacy' (the reference to marriage quickly disappeared) into a powerful tool for making public policy." [5] In contrast to the earlier opinions, in Eisenstadt v. Baird , Roe v. Wade , Doe v. Bolton , and Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth , the privacy rights of the individual woman were emphasized. However, in Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney and Cotner v. Henry , heterosexual married couples were held to have the right to engage in sodomy that homosexuals, or unmarried couples, respectively, were prohibited from having. (Homosexual sodomy was legalized, though, in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas .)

In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that the Loving v. Virginia case made clear that personal privacy rights have some extension to activities related to marriage. [6]

Related Research Articles

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. It struck down many U.S. state and federal abortion laws, and prompted an ongoing national debate in the United States about whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role of religious and moral views in the political sphere should be. Roe v. Wade reshaped American politics, dividing much of the United States into abortion rights and anti-abortion movements, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding abortion. In a plurality opinion, the Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in Roe v. Wade (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the undue burden standard for abortion restrictions.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that "the clear effect of [the Connecticut law ...] is to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. laws prohibiting private homosexual activity, sodomy, and oral sex between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. This case was overturned in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, though the statute had already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1998.

Harry Blackmun American jurist

Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, which prohibits many state and federal restrictions on abortion.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1982.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

New York v. Onofre

The People v. Ronald Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476, 415 N.E.2d 936, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947 (1980), was an appeal against New York's sodomy laws, decided in the New York Court of Appeals.

Powell v. State of Georgia, S98A0755, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E. 2d 18 (1998) was a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Anthony Powell was charged with a complaint in which he had performed non-consensual oral sex upon his wife's 17-year-old niece in his house. The jury acquitted him of the non-consensual portion of the complaint, but convicted him of consensual sodomy.

Reva B. Siegel is the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Siegel's writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality, and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is currently writing on the role of social movement conflict in guiding constitutional change, addressing this question in recent articles on reproductive rights, originalism and the Second Amendment, the "de facto ERA," and the enforcement of Brown. Her publications include Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking ; The Constitution in 2020 ; and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. Professor Siegel received her B.A., M.Phil, and J.D. from Yale University, clerked for Judge Spottswood Robinson on the D.C. Circuit, and began teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is active in the American Society for Legal History, the Association of American Law Schools, the American Constitution Society, in the national organization and as faculty advisor of Yale's chapter. She was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2018.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i>

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

Sodomy law Laws criminalising certain sexual acts

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be unnatural or immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexuals.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Estelle Griswold

Estelle Naomi Trebert Griswold was a civil rights activist and feminist most commonly known as a defendant in what became the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, in which contraception for married couples was legalized in the state of Connecticut, setting the precedent of the right to privacy. Griswold served as the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven when she and Yale professor C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in an attempt to change the Connecticut law banning contraception. Their actions set into motion legislation that resulted in both Poe v. Ullman and Griswold v. Connecticut.

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901 (1976), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which gave summary affirmation of a lower court ruling which upheld the U.S. state of Virginia's ban on homosexual sodomy.

State v. A. B. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453 (1868), was a case in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina found that even though a husband does not have the legal right to whip his wife, the courts "should not interfere to punish him for moderate correction of her", even if there was no provocation for it. The case established that in "determining whether the husband has been guilty of an indictable assault and battery upon his wife, the criterion is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it or the instrument used."

Fulgham v. State, 46 Ala. 143 (1871), was a case in which the Supreme Court of Alabama found that a husband has no right to inflict personal chastisement on his wife.

Sandra Cano, better known by the legal pseudonym "Mary Doe," was the plaintiff in the lawsuit case Doe v. Bolton (1970), the companion case to Roe v. Wade (1973).

References

  1. O'Reilly, James (1 April 1977). "Marital Privacy and Family Law". 66 (261). Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review: 8–24.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. Siegel, Reva B. (June 1996). ""The rule of love": wife beating as prerogative and privacy". Yale Law Journal. 105 (8): 2117–2207. doi:10.2307/797286. JSTOR   797286.
  3. https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/357L/61NC453.html PD-icon.svgThis article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  4. "Recalling the Supreme Court's historic statement on contraception and privacy - National Constitution Center".
  5. "The Bad Decision That Started It All". 2005-07-08.
  6. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108713/roe-v-wade/