15 Shocking Tales of How Sex Laws Are Screwing the American People

I wonder how the author would vote. It is one thing to say "public sex sure isn’t my thing", but quite another to vote that others should not have sex in public.

Note that if and when public sex is decriminalized, it does not mean it is okay to be purposefully offensive to others in an inconsiderate manner. If someone keeps sticking their tongue out towards another to act as though they were kissing the other, and such an action was unwelcome and disliked, then it would make sense to charge the offender with disorderly conduct. So, try to avoid the temptation to point out things which should be against the law but is not inherent to people engaging in public sex.

If one thinks that it is okay to restrict the freedoms of others with respect to public sex, then do understand that it is likely that similar underlying presumptions and attitudes are carried out to greater extents by others. Whether it be bans on public sex (such as in most places), expressions of love between people of the same sex (such as in the US military), bans on public nudity (such as in many cities and countries), bans on public displays of affection (such as in several public schools outside of class hours too), bans on exposing the bare arms or faces (such as in some places that enforce certain interpretations of Islamic code), the nature of the ban and conflicting principles are similar, though the extents may appear significantly different in the current social and cultural contexts. Do you think one (a grown up human (especially male ones) who is clearly sane (and hence not excused for being mentally disabled)) would not have to worry about being lynched for knowingly walking around nude in many parts of the country? Yet in select parts it is perfectly acceptable.

So, how would you vote on the decriminalization of public sex and why?

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US is extremely sexually repressed, but sanity is possible.

An inspiring documentary about sex politics in early 20th century US, Before Stonewall (1984).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many thanks to Ellen Friedrichs for this.

Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Consider the context. Illegal sex is replacing illegal drugs as a vehicle for politicians to get votes. Now that the drug war is losing public support, it is natural for politicians to look for a new threat against which to protect us.

Consider the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Very soon after Nancy Reagan's "just say no" campaign, the first wave of Mandatory Minimum sentencing statutes were enacted (but only against "drugs"). That was in 1986 and 1988, just before Fall elections. Then, for almost 20 years, no new MMs were added by statute, not even by the Patriot Act. But, beginning in 2005-2006, with H.R. 4472, we now we have MMs for illegal sex.

Just as it was politically risky in the late 1980s to speak out for "illegal drugs", it is now risky to speak out for "illegal sex".

This is just the beginning. The enforcers need something to enforce, and sex-law is it, now expedited by internet search engines and databases.

Consider, for instance, a recent edition of the Lakeland Ledger (FL):

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099914

and

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906095074

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'This June, the city of Yakima, Washington, voted to change the city's indecent exposure laws to include "cleavage of the buttocks."'

I wonder if Yakima's finest will be patrolling construction sites looking for workmen who violate this law?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's no coincidence that the U.S. stands out among developed nations as being exceedingly backward on the issue of sexual freedom. The problem -- like so many of our problems -- can be traced back to the religious fundamentalism that flourished in early America and still warps our society today.

These cases are often tragic and amusing at the same time. I well remember the Georgia crackers who went on TV and predicted doomsday unless Genarlow Wilson spent decades in prison for having received the BJ from the girl who was two years younger. You can bet it was sexual jealousy, racism and the strong influence of Southern Bible-thumpers that fueled those attitudes.

So it goes. And we shouldn't be surprised, in a nation in which our government actually subsidizes religious nonsense with generous tax breaks. We narrowly avoided the U.S. being turned into a theocratic state under George W. Bush, and might not be so lucky next time. Even Barack Obama has decided to fund those ridiculous "faith-based offices," to his eternal shame and disgrace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to this problem is JURY NULLIFICATION.

Of course, that would require folks to actually get off their assess and show up for Jury Duty. This article gives a clear indication of the type of people sitting on juries today. They are closed minded & robotic rubber stamps for the prosecution.

Some may say that if I were in the defendants' shoes I wouldn't risk taking a chance that the Jury will nullify my case. That's true! WHY? Because the only people showing up for Jury selection are idiots who'll do whatever the prosecution asks them to do.

The only way to counter these abuses is to get involved, and prevent these convictions. Only a Juror can do that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How "gay" is this?
Will the control freak PERSECUTORS bring charges against men like this??

What pervs!!

THEY EVEN DID IT ON TV!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contraceptive laws are totally irrational everywhere. Requiring parental consent to contraception but prohibiting parental consent to "supervised" consensual activity is brutally illogical.

Contraception should be universally available.

Thanks for the heads-up on the marital blow-job. I will stay single.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans are soooooo sexually repressed it's a shame! While I don't care to see a couple having sex in the middle of the street, that couple still has a right to privacy in their sexual lives! Maybe it's too much religion that has made far too many people so repressed! Maybe it's boredom, whatever it is they need to get a life!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Apparently, the era of blaming the victims of sexual assault is not a thing of the past."

Is this author a COMPLETE idiot? Does this author pay attention to ANYTHING involving rape? "Apparently" it is a thing of the past? It hasn't yet been a thing of the past. Abused women are left to fend for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not about out-dated Victorian sexual attitudes, and it's not about religious crazies hopped up on Jesus. It's about dominating all of the people, all of the time. It's about the sociopaths and the psychopaths who are attracted to those careers and industries where they can dominate the most, like the police, children's aid etc.

It's also about keeping the private for-profit prison industry loaded with new slobs to keep the money flowing, and a distraction to keep the cops from looking at and busting the real criminals in governments and corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article, Ellen.

However, I think it is worth pointing out, regarding No. 10, that the boy and girl who were initially charged differently ended up being treated the same.

See:

www.intotemptation.net ...

Rationality does win out in the end, sometimes. Neither kid went to jail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

waste enormous time and energy trying to subvert nature. Copulation is a biological imperative. Plants can be dried and smoked. These things are part of the natural world, and no one on the planet is entitled to pass judgment. A healthy society can agree to draw lines in instances where genuine harm can occur, but if there's no victim, there's no crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The two most destructive forces on earth are religion and capitalism. Nearly every war waged in the last century was waged on behalf of one or the other. Both are constructed to dominate humankind and both pretend otherwise. As long as people swallow the propaganda and willingly abandon reason, logic, and basic survival instincts, those two forces will get into every cranny of their lives, seeking ever more power and profit. Oh well, maybe next century. Except with overpopulation now nearly three times what the planet can sustain (population growth fostered by both capitalism and religion), there possibly won't be a next century for humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the link to the MS. law. The definition of abuse there doesn't refer to animals. Unless having sex with an animal is included in some other law, then apparently one is not obligated to report a teen's having sex with, say, a sheep.

I'm reminded of the story Bradford records in his Colonial history, where a guy was executed for–among other things–having sex with a turkey. Yikes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual hysteria and religious dogmatic repression are destroying the ability of people to express sexuality or even have an orgasm at all.
Those above puberty are still treated as children until they break the law then they are an adult. They can't drink but then they can be authorized to kill in war.
Adults can't sexually mentor young adults, teachers can't teach intimacy.
We are supposed to hide in the toxic nuclear families in pill-boxes of solitude.

Spiritual marriages are attacked by the secular society and secular marriages are attacked by the relgious institutions!

Biodiversity of feeling and caring should be freed. Joyce Elders should have been allowed to teach young adults how to experiment intimately and safely.

We need group marriage concepts for caring, sharing, and combining skills and finances and childrearing of less children for a sustainable geodesic world of eco-economic stress ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in the 1900s, American children reached sexual maturity (most measurable in girls, with the onset of menses), at an average age of 17. Now, puberty (secondary sex characteristics) begin to develop on average around age 9, and sexual maturity occurs on average at age twelve. That means that these children are thinking about sex, that's what the sex hormones naturally do! They make ya horny!

It's idiotic to pretend we can legislate the sexual behavior of kids when hormones are driving their interest. That would be like trying to prohibit sex among those in their 20s a hundred years ago.

Incidentally, the high fat, high animal-food Western diet style exposes children to excess hormones, and has other mechanisms that hurry the onset of puberty and maturity, and is probably far and away the biggest cause of the age of sexual maturity dropping so much over the last century. In areas of the world that do not eat a Western style diet, girls still reach menarche around age 17, as nature intended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

certain chapter in the text they were to pause and do the district's sex education unit. Two did as they were told. They received heavy criticism.

Three years later the two that did as they were told did not receive tenure. The one that skipped the sex education unit did. I was the one that skipped the sex ed unit.

When I got to the end of the chapter, I asked if they had heard of the "birds and the bees". They tittered and giggled. I said, "Good, Its like that with people" They all laughed. That was the end of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Does this behavior affect only the self? Examples: non-assisted suicide, non-smoking drug use, "cutting", tattooing/piercing, masturbation.

2. Is this behavior one in which two or more individuals partake in take place under informed consent? Examples: Sex of any kind, assisted suicide, BDSM-related behaviors (whipping, paddling, etc.), sexual relationships (not the sex itself) of all stripes (polyamorous/polyfidelity, open relationships, (non-agreed upon) extra-marital, sexual co-habiting), prostitution, boxing.

3. Does this behavior violate the Harm Principle? This is used for all behaviors in which informed consent isn't possible or feasible (passive, "tuned in" behaviors, etc.). Examples: public nudity and sex (ads, television, web sites, movies, or simply individuals partaking in such), singing, dancing, wearing loud/provocative clothes, having parades.

With these points of comparison, we'd have a single, simple baseline of behavioral governance, which would go a long way towards simplifying the determination of the permissibility of any particular human behavior. Things that are more complex would of course go for more debate, but for many (perhaps even most), we'd have a much easier time of it. Also with this, singling out particular types of behaviors often becomes pointless, since it already would fall under the purview of one of the above. Examples: homosexual sex (of any kind), group sex, anal sex, oral sex. Any particular ideology that attempts to opine on these behaviors would be excluded from the debate, since these behaviors would already pass at No. 2 - meriting no further debate. "Gateway" arguments are defeated without further debate as well. Example: Rick Santorum makes the argument that "making homosexual sex legal is only the first step towards allowing things like bestiality". This argument couldn't be made in a congressional debate; as shown by number 2, any consensual behavior which is between two or more individuals is protected. Animals cannot provide informed consent, ergo, this argument is baseless.


Bottom line, only fairness and harm should be considered when making laws. The ideals off purity/sanctity, authority/respect, and in-group/loyalty as the basis for law should be consigned to the trash heap of history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

folks on the sexual deviate lists for cohabiting with black folk. They reportedly have their own KKK cops who call KKK witnesses. The KKK cops bring their accusations before a KKK prosecutor who brings his case before a KKK judge. If you ask for a jury the KKK judge will not allow your non-KKK attorney to bring your case. Remember that the KKK still believes in the miscegenation laws. The KKK will tell you how they are just doing good works. I suppose in their eyes they are.

The radical right is supporting vigilantism in our nation. This means that they are not only opposed to the rule of law but they are, in fact, opposed to democracy. But then we already knew that didn't we.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

co-opted by congress people who have had their private lives invaded by violations under FISA and then, under threat of sexual prosecution, voted for or against legislation that was contrary to the needs of our citizens. How often do we see the people who represent us vote against our wishes because they have been compromised by their private (but "illegal") behavior?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every state legislator should be required as a precondition to taking their oath of office, Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors: the Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" and passing a fact-based quiz from the contents of the book.
Ten they should be required to take an Human Sexuality and Relationships course followed by a test they have to pass with a 99% or higher.

Consider it a No Child Should Continue to Be Harmed variation for Legislators.

As I read the litany, all I kept thinking was... god damned fundie Xtians fucking everyone up. And NOT in a good way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi all,
A lot of people think advocating on the side of sex offenders is wrong but until you really know you can not discuss the subject. I am not talking about being molested, who has not been molested! Many molests end in marriage, casual sex, or arrests if the offender is unexpected by the flurtee, but more importantly is the choice made for the right reasons, is the person calling foul to use the flurter to their own ends through planning, conniving, setting up their pray like leaving the keys in the ignition and the engine running, door open, radio on, while in wait around the corner in the cruiser for the wheels to turn.
Well in this scenario the wheels have all gone square and fell off.
See if women’s groups were on top of this they would see the hypocrisy of using sex law to control anything but few have chimed in. Don’t like being the brunt of this cruel turn of events I guess.
But it is simple. Give the power to the law makers to watch over the offenders when the law makers are the only one’s that want that power and they are the one’s who made the laws to hide themselves behind a firewall of lies and deny access to their information (wit sec) so they can break laws and force 8 year old children to register for life as a sex offender because someone says they were offended? Who jurors such cases? The ends do not justify the means. No one can legislate, sex. It is the law of attraction. I saw a story today where the headlines were violent sex offender gets death. The person killed the victim and these yahoos worry about the sex? Was the sex before or after this person killed the person? Do they care the person is dead or do they care the person had or did not have sex? Bible readers need to think were Adams sons got their wives and did they have to be on a registry. There was no registry in the 60’s and now that an illegal one is running on the web is it your friend. Who thinks one person is better than another? What makes one persons right or wrong? Is it: who can afford a better attorney or buy their way out of jail? Is it morals you need to protect when the church in England refuses to open their doors to the freedom of information act? This stinker of a law is being welded by any loser who wants to pay for the information and blast their music at or weld a bat at the person who’s name comes up weather the information is correct or not. People are being targeted by fools, users, and the misinformed, being informed by people who have made so many errors in their data base they have become liable for murder in case after case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Friedrichs' reporting is brave and commendable; the vicious magnitude of U.S. sexual oppression is normally kept secret -- not the least because it is among this nation's most definitive characteristics -- and Ms. Friedrichs has overthrown a number of taboos to collect and report her findings in rarely available detail.

Nevertheless, Ms. Friedrichs has also failed ruinously in that she does not trace the national hatefulness toward sex and sexuality to its origin in the shared Abrahamic roots of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Worse, by her failure she rejects a unique opportunity to help us defend ourselves against the very malignancy she so rightfully deplores.

Yet as long as the Left in general remains in “politically correct” denial about the significance of religion in human life (and not just in the de facto Christian theocracy of the United States or the de jure Islamic theocracies of the Middle East), we will be unable to muster adequate resistance against such terrifying atrocities. Whether it is Christian law that sends 17-year-old males to adult prison (and thereby sentences them to 100-percent-certainty of repeated anal gang-rape and 90-percent certainty of death by AIDS), or Islamic law that strangles young women to death in grotesque public hangings, in either case it is precisely this penchant for murderous vengeance that historically defines Abrahamic religion.

But lacking such understanding -- which includes recognition that ALL Christian, Islamic and Judaic doctrine is ultimately based on unyielding hostility to biology and biological process and is thus irremediably antagonistic not only to science but ultimately to nature and woman (note the biological/meta-biological absurdity of an exclusively male creator who brought the cosmos into being not only asexually but without female help) -- no change is possible.

And once we see how such doctrines have inflicted on us not only the microcosmic horrors of children condemned to death by torture but the macrocosmic Gaian vengeance of terminal climate change and petroleum bankruptcy (the latter a totality of collapse that has no counterpart in human experience), we are positioned to understand just how much more is at stake: the ethos that despises Nature's microcosm of sexuality also despises the infinity of being that is Nature in macrocosm.

In which context it is particularly instructive to focus on another unique factor of Abrahamic religion: its claim to have abolished death. But the only way to abolish death is to abolish life -- precisely as Christianity, Islam and Judaism and their pseudo-secular offshoots capitalism and post-Nazi fascism are already doing by wholesale environmental rape and ecological poisoning.

Such are the connections Ms. Friedrichs -- in this instance silenced not by theofascist censors but ironically by “political correctness” -- dared not publicly make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm considering a move to Georgia. As I read this, wearing pants like they are "supposed to be worn," inches above my butt cleavage, I reach back and realize that the waistband of my briefs is peeking out above my pants about 1/4 inch which means my underwear is visible. If I'm ever in Bainbridge, to play it safe, I guess I'd better just skip the underwear.

buzzsaw

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps sometime in the near future the United States should send a contingent to the World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights. Or even better how about they just listen. I always believed & still do that the interests of the child are PARAMOUNT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never realized all these " bass-ackwards" places, as the " Southerners" used to call them back when I lived in the Orlando area of Florida; actually EXISTED! now for why I say this shall be " interesting." I am a transsexual-lesbian woman living legally as a woman here in Connecticut, a state which is liberal far as the laws go, but can be quite backwards and moderately-conservative in itself. legally, I am a female as stated on my Conn. driver's license- the " F" for sex in the upper left hand corner.
BUT.....I shall soon be moving, going all the way across the USA till I get to California, where I will either try and find a rural area which is fairly " affordable" to live in outside redding; or more possibly venture north into Rural Southern-Central Inland Oregon between Corvallis-Albany; Bend, and Yreka, CA.
I really want to see the USA in all it's glory; from those PA mountains, rolling southern Ohio Cornfields, " amber waves of grain in Indiana; right through those vast, relatively flat-ish wheat fields and prairies of Kansas.[KS being Melissa Etheridge's home state by the way!]
and so, rather than take the BORING Interstates across America like Jack and Jill Sprat with kids in tow would most-likely do; I am fixing to travel the back routes[ state/county highways]all the way from Southbury, Connecticut to Pismo Beach, California.
I've Google-Mapped the routes west all the way, starting from Newtown, Connecticut's Infamous Giant Flagpole situated right in the middle of its New England Style Main Street into Ridgefield,CT/NY state line; all the way across the Bear Mountain bridge, NY; into Newton,NJ,PA,OH,IN,IL,MO,KS,CO,NM,AZ;finally entering California at Death Valley/Furnace Creek.
This route shall take me , I am told by many of these " East-Coast[ formally!] Educated Liberals" here in both CT and Westchester/Putnam County, NY; that I will be passing through some of the " most redneck places" in all the United States of America. places like Punxsutawney, PA;
Seymour, IN [ John Mellencamp's Hometown]; Pocahontas, IL [ Country Music's Gretchen Wilson's hometown]; Winfield, MO; Leavenworth, KS [ Melissa Etheridge's hometown]; Salina, Hays,and Trego Center, Kansas.
I am not exactly, according to transgender-speak, 100% " Passable"; as I am pre-SRS and cannot afford the laser facial hair removal yet. But, as Ellen De Generes says us LGBT's should all be despite our haters, I am out and proud; living like any other American Woman would dress, act, and live!
I will be, obviously, traveling alone; as I have nobody to go with and have to admit that, in the ten years I've lived back here in Western Connecticut both before my May 2005 MTF transition and after; I have not really been able to make but 1-2 truly close friends.
everybody seems "too busy" with their daily lives as " professionals" and to top that, I live in a reasonably conservative
" family values" town called Southbury, CT which is 97.5% White and Heterosexual; but safer and nicer then most CT cities.
the local trans and biological women, I have met since my transition and I simply do not share the same values. they are more the typical Middle-aged Connecticut
" Professionals" and follow the, modest and boring," middle-aged professional ladies' dress codes" that simply make me want to cringe! Chico's and Talbot's styles are not my style!
and so, I will be, much like I have gotten used to most of my loner life, traveling alone and meeting many different people in many different, mostly smaller towns. I am sure that I will encounter both good and bad along the way, and as for what I am told; I will be optimistic and try to believe that NOT EVERYONE in Rural Southern Indiana or Kansas is a Christian-redneck asshole Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh fan like so many here in the New York City to Boston Area tend to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

does no one take some issue with 16-17 year old's having sex with children that are 13 or 14? I don't think that those that are 16-17 should serve hard time or have to register as sex offenders, but this seems to me to be using or abusive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

part of the mix. The United States stands in 30th place in the world for quality of life. All of those European more sexually relaxed countries are lined up ahead of us. I won't guess whether their sexual freedoms are causal or symptomatic.

Notice how is is always the republican radical right that supports the goofy, repressive sex laws. We have cases where some drunk urinates in a public place and is charged with indecent exposure. He is then placed on the sexual deviants list for life. He is tossed in with the pedophiles.

We have cases of gay couples kissing in public. They get charged with a felony. There are 50 different states out there. There are 50 different laws out there. What you are seeing displayed on TV on the coasts is illegal in many states.

High moral standards always provide space for the rights and freedoms of others. This is the essence of morality. Its the warped mind that thinks that morality is a book of don'ts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is an excellent article -- but the author has entirely ignored a key issue that undergirds much of the American obsession with regulating sexual activity. That issue can be summed up by two words -- organized religion.

Many years ago, I made a solemn promise to myself -- I will never set foot in any church or house of organized worship again as long as I live. I made this decision because of the manner in which so-called "Christians" (as well as adherents to other religions, such as Islam) have attacked, ridiculed, condemned, slandered, vilified, and demonized gay men and lesbians. I want absolutely nothing to do with a system (or mindset) that effects such damage.

In 2003, the US Supreme Court finally overturned a monstrous earlier decision (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) that upheld the constitutionality of sodomy statutes as applied to oral and anal intercourse between same-sex partners – even when such activity occurred between consenting adults in entirely private contexts. At that time, the State of Georgia (against whom this lawsuit was filed) had on it is books a statute that permitted for the mandatory incarceration of any person who had oral or anal intercourse with another person for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 20 years! Although the District Attorney declined to bring an indictment before the grand jury, Michael Hardwick was so enraged by the intrusion of the police into his sex life (officers were admitted to his house in error by a houseguest, and walked into Hardwick’s bedroom, where they observed him having consensual oral sex with another man) that he filed suit against the State of Georgia (Michael Bowers was the Attorney General of the State of Georgia at that time – interestingly, he had been conducting an adulterous affair over a period of several years, which was also a serious crime under Georgia state law at that time). In what was widely regarded as one of the contemporary Court’s most embarrassing and humiliating failures, a five-vote majority of the Court upheld the Georgia sodomy statute (and, by extension, similar statutes in about 24 other states) from a due process challenge, holding that this statute did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision became the target of sustained and unremitting criticism, from the moment it was handed down. Six years ago, the US Supreme Court explicitly and bluntly overruled this decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), holding that it had been entirely wrong in deciding Bowers, and implicitly apologizing to the gay community in strong and stark language. Lawrence has (correctly) been hailed as a case in which the Court corrected a serious constitutional injustice. In handing down Lawrence, the Court invalidated the Texas state sodomy statute (and, by extension, the sodomy statutes of the remaining 14 states that still retained such measures following the handing down on Bowers back in 1986); the Court explicitly declared that the DISSENT in Bowers should have been controlling, and that it had perpetrated a manifest injustice against a law-abiding sector of the American populace some 17 years previously.

Most of the appalling injustices described by Friedrichs can and should be challenged – in the wake of Lawrence, they would almost certainly be held unconstitutional. Of course, it is much easier for people to pay the fine and get on with their lives – but the only way of overturning such unjust legislation (short of repeal) is to challenge such legislation in court. The Florida attack on “swingers” ultimately failed, precisely because there is no law against swinging (and were such a law to be passed, it is highly unlikely that it would survive constitutional challenge). The three Pennsylvania teens...

(CONTINUED)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The three Pennsylvania teens also had the bravery and the fortitude to sue the District Attorney who busted them for “sexting” – and it is likely that they will prevail, given the specific facts of this case. Similarly, the Georgia judge who ruled that a father could not “expose” his children to gay partners and friends was way out of line, and that judge’s actions flew directly in the face of Lawrence; I do hope that the father in question prevails. The Wisconsin mother who was charged with explaining oral sex to her son could (and should) bring suit against the bastards who charged her – she has a perfectly valid First Amendment defense, and the swine who charged her should already be aware of this.

However, I take the point – the US remains the most sexually backwards nation in the Western world. Friedrichs has not mentioned the reason for this – she did not discuss the role that organized religion has played in creating this mess.

Organized religion is ultimately about power and control (notwithstanding the assertions of adherents, who blather on and on about God’s love and mercy). It is about forcing people to abide by social conventions that work to the advantage of the rich and powerful, and to the disadvantage of the poor and powerless. It is about forcing people to do the will of the state – in no cases is this more obvious than during mobilizations for war, when people are called upon to “spread democracy” and to bring “Christian values” to other parts of the world. Whenever America wishes to go to war against another nation, politicians take their cue and whip up accounts of religious extremism in the targeted nations. Thus, we hear blatant lies (such as the stories about Iraqi troops throwing babies out of incubators during the Gulf War). We are told that, by going to war against other nations, we are doing “God’s work”. This is the same dynamic that motivated men to join the Crusades several centuries ago. At no time are men and women more cheerful whilst perpetrating atrocities against their fellow human beings than when doing so under the guise of religious zeal.

Friedrichs’ article is excellent – but she should have discussed the role of organized religion in creating the travesties that she documents. America is the most religious of the Western democracies – and it is also the most sexually dysfunctional. Other Western nations in which religion does NOT play a key role (Scandinavian nations come to mind immediately) are much, much more progressive in their sexual attitudes, and are much more accepting of gay men and lesbians. Despite the US Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence, gay Americans are still treated as second-class citizens. I WILL NEVER FORGET OR FORGIVE the sight of that white-haired old bastard, Senator Richard Byrd, as he literally waved his Bible around in the well of the US Senate as he denounced gay Americans and spoke in favor of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in 1996, thereby denying more than 1,130 federal rights, benefits, and privileges to gay Americans.

If there is a hell, may men and women such as Byrd rot there forever.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The capitalist class can’t let ordinary people have any control over their lives because it would open the door to real democracy, which capitalism cannot tolerate.

That is why the State controls who we have sex with, who we marry, whether we reproduce, how we raise our children, what drugs we take and even our personal beliefs.

Violation of the personal right-to-decide is so taken-for-granted that ordinary people get caught up in debates about how the State should control individual behavior. The right of the State to dictate such matters is rarely questioned.

Genuine democracies treat individual matters as strictly personal. The Paris Commune abolished “the morality police.” The Russian Revolution struck down all legislation regulating personal behavior, including laws against homosexuality, prostitution and abortion. Divorce was granted on request. In contrast, socially harmful behaviors like hoarding and speculation were not tolerated.

Capitalism does the opposite. Exploitation and oppression are practiced freely, while individual behavior is micromanaged.

Right-wing moralists claim that the majority doesn’t know how to make good decisions. There is some truth to this – the majority would make decisions that aren’t good for the capitalist class.

Conflicting class interests are the real reason why the majority is denied any power over their personal lives.

Susan Rosenthal

excerpted from Professional Poison: How Professionals Sabotage Social Movements and why Workers Should Lead Our Fight

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://epiphanypoint.wordpress.com/the-genital-echo-project/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]