Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Reason Number 2,767 Why Gay Rights Matter to Everyone
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
The End of American Capitalism? 5 Short Takes on Where the Financial Crisis Might Be Headed
Democracy and Elections:
Democratic Election Protection Strategy's Missing Link: Electronic Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
Marijuana Is Real Medicine
Paul Krassner
Election 2008:
What I Learned at the Sarah Palin Rally Before They Threw Me out
Linda Milazzo
Environment:
How Local Governments Are Standing in the Way of Clean Energy
Kyle Rabin
ForeignPolicy:
Chomsky: "If the U.S. Carries Out Terrorism, It Did Not Happen"
Subrata Ghoshroy
Health and Wellness:
Will the Economic Meltdown Undermine Interest in Health Care Reform?
Niko Karvounis
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Tuition Becomes Battleground in Immigration Fight
Annette Fuentes
Media and Technology:
The Growth of Talking Points Memo: A Case Study in Independent Media
Joshua Micah Marshall
Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman
Rights and Liberties:
Robert Fisk: For the Muslim World, It Will Make No Difference Who Wins the Election
Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez
Sex and Relationships:
Months After Boumediene, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Aziz Huq
War on Iraq:
The End of Iraq's "Awakening"?
Robert Dreyfuss
Water:
New Information Shows How Climate Change Will Affect Water
The Federal court decision that inspired this post happened a couple of months ago, when I first wrote it. But the issues it addresses are very much current and pertinent ... not to mention a rare bit of good sex news in this crappy decade. So I'm reprinting it anyway. This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.
As you've probably heard, the Texas law banning the sale of sex toys has been overturned.
This is excellent news, for all the obvious reasons. Most obviously, Texans can now buy and sell sex toys. People can now open sex toy stores in Texas, run fuckerware parties in Texas, sell sex toys to Texans through the mail without fear of entering murky legal waters. Woo-hoo! Go, Texans! (Good articles about it in the Austin-American Statesman, and in Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
But I want to talk about one of the less obvious reasons why this is astoundingly, excitingly, kick-ass good news.
(Please note: I'm not a legal expert, and I'm definitely not an expert on constitutional law. These are simply the opinions of a smart lay person who's been paying attention to this issue for a long time, informed by the opinions of people who are legal experts.)
The primary reason for the Texas sex toy ruling -- the main precedent cited -- was the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which overturned sodomy laws and legalized gay sex across the country. Now, Lawrence was important for sexual civil rights for a whole lot of reasons. Most obviously, it meant that nobody in the United States could be considered a criminal simply for having gay sex. And that has huge implications for things like custody rights, housing rights, employment rights, etc. Before Lawrence, gay people could be -- and were -- denied all sorts of basic rights ... because, technically, they were criminals. Lawrence upended all that, and it was hugely important for that reason alone.
But this latest case -- the Texas sex toy case, Reliable Consultants and PHE v. Texas -- makes it clear that Lawrence has even broader implications ... for everyone. Gay, straight, everyone.
The Texas sex toy case makes it clear that the Lawrence v. Texas ruling established a constitutional right to sexual privacy in the United States.
And that, people, is HUGE.
We didn't used to have that. You might have had it in the particular state you lived in -- we've had it in California since 1975, when the consenting adults law got passed -- but United States citizens did not have any constitutionally guaranteed right to sexual privacy."
And we have it now. Yes, the Federal courts have now said that you have a constitutional right to use a vibrator or a dildo. But so much more than that: the Federal courts have now said ... well, let me quote briefly from the decision.
Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence. (Emphasis mine.)
See more stories tagged with: gay rights, sexuality, government, sex toys
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »