Lawrence vs. Texas
Do we have in private consenting adult
rights in the U.S. like most of the world enjoys?
No, says the religious right and most conservatives
Yes, says the U.S. Supreme Court but questions remain
As Newsweek said, Lawrence vs. Texas is one of the 3 most
important Supreme Court decisions in the last 100 years
Lawrence vs. Texas is just as important in
the sexwork industry as the Row v Wade where abortion is the right of a women to
decide up until about 28 weeks when the fetus becomes "viable". McCain and Huck,
of course have stated they want to see this right taken away and will either
appoint Supreme's that will overturn it or pass the "Human Life" Amendment to
force women to have unwanted children and us to pay for it via welfare.
Biblically of course their is no soul till birth and nothing biblically wrong
about abortion - the typical ignorance of Christians imposing their non biblical
morality just as they do with prostitution which was never wrong (common
prostitutes) in the bible.
But for sexwork the key issue to argue their is no compelling government issue
requiring limits on commercial sex for in private consenting adults. But sadly
most when they think of "prostitution" or "commercial sex" only think of the
drugged out public nuisance street hooker. But Lawrence vs Texas is only about
PRIVATE sexuality but many folks argue all sexwork is exploitive and no women
would choose it if she has free will - the typical feminist anti sex crap that
of course is foolish and just wrong.
Supreme Court Status
Bush has given life appointments to 293 judges, many relatively young and
conservative. Ex-President Bill Clinton appointed more judges... 367 in his two
terms...but he had to select more moderate candidates because he was working
with a GOP Senate for much of his presidency.
Bush’s legal imprint is most notable on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John
Roberts, 53, and Assoc. Justice Samuel Alito, 57, have moved the Court markedly
to the right and put it squarely in the pro-business corner. The high court has
limited lawsuits against firms and favors federal preemption of stricter state
regs.
A Democrat couldn’t easily shift the Court’s direction. The two justices most
likely to step down over the next few years... John Paul Stevens, 87, and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, 74...lean liberal, so a Democrat couldn’t do much more than
preserve the current balance.
In Lawrence vs. Texas it was Justice Stevens who argued, morality - even a
longstanding view that a practice is immoral -- is not a sufficient
justification to uphold a law prohibiting particular conduct. Second, he argued,
individual decisions by married and unmarried persons about "intimacies of their
physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring" are a form
of "liberty" under the Due Process Clause. His retirement would be a loss for
sexual freedoms.
Ginsburg's wrote in her 1974 report "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal
Law" that "Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within
the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." In Lawrence
vs. Texas she was part of the majority opinion. Her retirement would also be a
loss for sexual freedom.
Justice Scalia wrote a sharply worded dissent, which Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist Justice Clarence Thomas joined. These are your conservative judges
that want to deny individual rights and impose morality (whose?- the Religious
Right of course) on private acts of consenting adults.
A GOP president, though, could push the Court further right, against individual
rights, assuming he could persuade enough Democrats to confirm his nominees.
"Conservative" usually means anti-women's choice in issues of reproductive rights and private sexual rights. Conservatives want to reverse Rowe v. Wade and of course would reverse the important Lawrence vs. Texas decision for sexual rights. Conservatives know what is best for you, not your choice based on your beliefs. "Right" is usually pro business and anti individual rights, seeking to impose the Christian Right morality regardless of logic or will of the people. These are generalizations but generally hold true.
Extensive Articles:
2/24/2008 5th Circuit UPHOLDS Lawrence vs. Texas regarding sale of sex toys but may be appealed and result in a major Lawrence case fight. See discussion in link
8/4/07 PALFREY IS USING A LAWRENCE Vs. TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE!
LAWRENCE vs. TEXAS UPDATES May 2006
Judges Starting To Cite it - Potential Good News
Can same arguments be made for private consenting adult sexwork?
Huge Report on
Lawrence vs. Texas
Chicago 2/28 - 2/29/2004 Swing Leadership Conference
Great conference especially the legal discussion by two experienced sexual rights attorney's of Lawrence vs. Texas which has very wide implications for all sexual expression. Not just swinging but even prostitution hopeful comments by the attorney's that private prostitution may be ruled a constitutionally protected right. As Newsweek said, Lawrence vs. Texas one of the 3 most important Supreme Court decisions in the last 100 years. It represents a total shift on how sexual expression should be a right and no longer can "morality" laws be legitimate. However the religious right fanatics and the Bush Dynasty will not accept the cultural and legal progress and will fight hard to stop the march towards more individual liberties and freedom of sexual expression. The conference is for swing leadership but includes 2 sessions on Lawrence vs. Texas