In U.S. Huge Report on Lawrence vs. Texas

[Dave in Phoenix]

News from the U.S.

Huge Report on Lawrence vs. Texas
Hope for sexwork but long battle looms
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:

Lawrence vs Texas - Reed Lee, with Chicago law firm of J.D. Obenberger
Lawrence vs Texas: the Supreme Court and Our Right to Have Sex -Jim Turner, Attorney Swankin and Turner

Huge detailed report at http://www.libchrist.com/swing/lawconference.html

 

[ocean976124]

Just because a law is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. I think we're headed down a long dark path where one day the Supreme Court will void even a Constitutional Amendment.
When did the USA cease being a Federal Republic and turn into a nation ruled by 9 wise men in robes?

 

[gramage]

the courts have voided a constitutional ammendment? I've never heard this. when?

When did the USA cease being a Federal Republic and turn into a nation ruled by 9 wise men in robes?

the same time Canada did, when lawmakers became to cowardly to advance freedom at the expence of archaic tradition, and put the entire responsibility of adjusting the laws on courts which they can distance themselves from politically. they don't have the courage to do their jobs so the courts have no choice but to do it for them.

 

[ocean976124]

the courts have voided a constitutional ammendment? I've never heard this. when?

No they never have. What I said was we're heading down that path. It appears judges care little for the rule of law. It seems to me that they now are merely deciding what laws they think are good and bad rather than constitutional.
Take the Mass. Supreme Court. If the state government and people vote for a State Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, I can honestly see the court ruling that the amendment itself is discriminatory and therefore invalid...

As Thomas Moore questioned in Henry VIII: "And when you've cut down every law to get to even the devil himself, do you really think you'd be able to stand in the winds that would then blow?"

 

[gramage]

ok I thought you said that they had, my bad. so far these court rulings have been to enforce the constitution and guarantee personal freedom in situations lawmakers don't have the guts to do it in. if and only if they go beyond this and start going beyond the constitution and human rights will I condemn them, right now their doing what they never should have had to in the first place because politicians should have made these decisions years ago.

 

[C Dick]

What was Lawrence vs Texas? The "gay sex in your own house is ok" case?

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

What was Lawrence vs Texas? The "gay sex in your own house is ok" case?

Yes but the part that took everyone by suprise was the 2nd part of the ruling which in a narrow 5-4 decision clearly said morality is NOT a basis for law. That is the opposite of all previous decisions. And that its a personal rights issue to express sexuality as a basic liberty guranteed by the constitution.

Most everyone thought the Court would toss the sodomy law that only made it wrong for gays. That was a clear equal protection argument and the decision was 7-2 (always conservative Scalia and Thomas the desenters.)

But it was the fact in the 2nd part of the decision about morality not a basis for law and indivudual freedoms that was the wonderful surprise.

All this and more discussed in my long report - link in my original message.

 

[C Dick]

Thanks Dave. My attention span is not long enough for the long report, I appreciate the summary.