The Lawrence Decision Landmark Case
For Privacy not Morality Argument
1/04
U.S. Supreme Court Justices say in Lawrence v. Texas:
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into
a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not
omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and
existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant
presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an
autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression,
and certain intimate conduct." [Kennedy, writing for the majority,
02-102, June 2003]
Or:
"A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the
State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with
that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal
Protection Clause, under any standard of review." [O'Connor, concurring
in part, 02-102, June 2003
Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "..that
they are endowed with certain inalienable rights. ... That among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I believe that
sexuality falls under pursuit of happiness !
Contrast this
U.S. Supreme Court case with a recent 11th Circuit Case
supporting the outlawing of sex toys !
Alabama Can Ban Sex Toy Sales Based on Morality per 11th Circuit but
..before the Lawrence Supreme Court Case
In the case regarding the State of Alabama and the banning of the sale
of sex toys, here is what the 11th Circuit Court concluded regarding the
District Court's determination that the statute lacked a rational basis.
"The State's interest in public morality is a legitimate interest
rationally served by the statute. The crafting and safeguarding of
public morality has long been an established part of the States' police
power to legislate and indisputably is a legitimate government interest
under rational basis scrutiny. A statute banning the commercial
distribution of sexual devices is rationally related to this interest.
Alabama argues a ban on the sale of sexual devices and related orgasm
stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate
legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous
sex' and that it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that
commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own
sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State." [Williams
v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2001)]
VS. Lawrence Case which seems to have overturned that line of thinking!
Back To
Coalition Home Page
Copyright © 2000-2004 All Rights Reserved. |