"The only part of someone's conduct, for which he is available to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which simply concerns himself, its independence is, of law, absolute... The principle requires freedom of taste and research; to structure the plan of our life to adapt it to our character, subject to the consequences that may follow without impediment from our fellow men; what we do does not harm them, even if they consider our conduct senseless, perverse or wrong." This quote from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty lays the philosophical foundation for the right to privacy. Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee this right, the Supreme Court through landmark cases such as Roe v Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird has judicially established the right to privacy in limited areas relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, child rearing and education. The Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, that "the Constitution provides no fundamental right to practice homosexual sodomy." (Bowers v. Hardwick) This document will show that the analysis behind the Bowers v. Hardwick was incorrect and limited in scope. I believe the government has no right to ban consensual homosexual or heterosexual sodomy. Anti-sodomy laws violate the right to privacy, equal protection, and provide no reasonable state concern for these violations. On August 3, 1982, Michael Hardwick was arrested in Atlanta for the crime of sodomy with a consenting adult male in the privacy of his bedroom. (Cain, 1612) The Georgia statute provides that "a person commits... half of the document... ct. 31, 1986.* Halley, Janet E.; "Reasoning About Sodomy;" Virginia Law Review; Vol. 79 :1721; 193 p. 1740-1772.* Leveno, Elizabeth A.; "New Hope for the New Federalism: Constitutional Challenges to the Sodomy Statute"; : Invalidating the Sodomy Statute" Kentucky Law Journal 81; "Constitutional Challenges to the Criminalization of Same-Sex Sexual Activities: State Interest in HIV-AIDS Issues"; Denver University Law Review, vol. 70, n . 2, pp. 337-357.* State v. Morales; 2d 201,202 (Tx. Ct. App. 1992)* Wiegand, Shirley “Part of the Flow in Motion: State Constitutional Law, Sodomy and Beyond; Kentucky Law Journal; vol. 81; 1992-93; P. 449 - 481.