In 2003, the Supreme Court in the landmark decision Lawrence v. Texas found a Texas law, banning homosexual, but not heterosexual, sodomy to be unconstitutional. Thus, Lawrence ended the Bowers era in which morality was deemed to be a justification for discrimination against gays and lesbians. While the decision did bring to United States Constitutional analysis the radical idea that gays and lesbians are people too, it stopped short of addressing the real problem the case presents--the existence of a second-class citizenry. This Article examines the Lawrence decision in light of both the international, regional, and foreign jurisprudence and the critical theoretical frameworks. In doing so, it provides a more complete rendition of the Lawrence facts than appears in the Supreme Court opinion and offers further insight into the litigants' life histories. This critical evaluation leads to the conclusion that the good in Lawrence be celebrated, but with caution, in order to move forward in a pluralistic, accepting, antisubordination model.