Question: Which court case, Gonzales v. Carhart or Lawrence v. Texas, struck down the sodomy law?

full_context: Document 1: State v. Limon: State v. Limon (280 Kan. 275, 122 P.3d 22) is a 2005 Kansas Supreme Court case in which a state law allowing for lesser punishment for statutory rape convictions if the partners were of different sexes than if they were of the same sex was found unconstitutional under both the federal and Kansas state constitutions. It was among the first cases to cite the United States Supreme Court decision "Lawrence v. Texas" as precedent, months after the Virginia Supreme Court did similarly in "Martin v. Ziherl".
Document 2: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105 , 117 Stat. 1201 , enacted  05, 2003 , , PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion," referred to in medical literature by as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of "Gonzales v. Carhart".
Document 3: Gonzales v. Carhart: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Document 4: Obergefell v. Hodges: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) ( ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5–4 decision.
Document 5: Martha Gonzalez: Martha Sulay González (or Marta Solay González) (1971 – June 11, 2007) was a Colombian woman whose case led to significant reforms in abortion law in that country: as a direct response to the Gonzalez case, the Constitutional Court decriminalized abortion under specific circumstances - most notably, the circumstance of significant risk to the mother's life.
Document 6: United States v. Windsor: United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
Document 7: Loving v. Virginia: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Document 8: LeRoy Carhart: LeRoy Harrison Carhart (born 1941) is an American physician from New Jersey best known for performing abortions late in pregnancy. He became famous for his participation in the Supreme Court cases "Stenberg v. Carhart" and "Gonzales v. Carhart", both of which dealt with intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as "partial-birth abortion"). He was one of the four subjects of the 2013 documentary "After Tiller".
Document 9: In re A.C.: In re A.C. was a 1987 D.C. Circuit reproductive rights case. It was the first appellate court case decided against forced Caesarean sections, although the decision was issued after the fatal procedure was performed. Physicians performed a Caesarean section upon patient Angela Carder (née Stoner) without informed consent in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of her fetus. The case stands as a landmark in United States case law establishing the rights of informed consent and bodily integrity for pregnant women.
Document 10: Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged. The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions. "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion. Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.
Document 11: Beal v. Doe: Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) , was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood. The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the "Roe v. Wade" decisionabortion as a rightintact. The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion.
Document 12: Same-sex marriage in the United States: In the United States, same-sex marriage is legal in all states, Washington, D.C., as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa, but not on all Native American tribal lands, since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Obergefell v. Hodges" that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a 1972 precedent, "Baker v. Nelson". Just prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, same-sex marriage was legal in many but not all U.S. jurisdictions.
Document 13: Lawrence v. Texas: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6-3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case "Bowers v. Hardwick", where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.
Document 14: Bowers v. Hardwick: Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) , is a United States Supreme Court decision, overturned in 2003, 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.
Document 15: Baker v. Wade: Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121 (N.D. Tex. 1982), rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc) 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.
ground_truth: Lawrence v. Texas