Lawrence vs. TexasPromoting Intimacy and Positive, Healthy, Consenting Adult SexualityDo we have in private consenting adult rights in the U.S. like most of the world enjoys?No, says the religious right and most conservativesYes, 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 StatusBush 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:May 2008: Is Sexual Freedom is a Constitutional Right? which also has more legal discussion of the Lawrence v. Texas Decision2/24/2008 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 |