Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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

By Greta Christina, The Blowfish Blog. Posted May 9, 2008.


Right-wingers who fight gay rights are the same sex-phobes who want to stop birth control, sex education and abortion.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Greta Christina

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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.)


Digg!

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 »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Again with the special interests...
Posted by: paddymick on May 9, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need to support gay rights; we need to support individual rights. The case you cite as your example doesn't have any "gay" connotations unless you happen to know the principals in the case and their sexual preference. It could have just as easily been a heterosexual couple.

We don't need gay rights. We need individual rights. If we would concentrate on that then all the races, genders, and sexual orientations would be covered. If we give the individual the right to choose with whom they share their medical benefits, their inheritance, the guardianship of their children, etc., we don't have to specify that gays have this right, or the blacks have this right, or that women have this right. It becomes everyone's right.

Your childish attempts to make special interest groups into oppressed factions that need special protection smacks of reverse discrimination. This is why I don't support hate crime legislation. The crime of pounding someone to death should not be considered more or less heinous based on the sexual orientation of the victim (or the perpetrator). I find this line of reasoning intellectually offensive, and this article is no more than just another in this vein. Fight for human rights and we will have rights for gays, blacks, indians, asians, women, men, children, etc. Grow up.

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

» RE: Again with the special interests... Posted by: philipcfromnyc
SteveMD2
Posted by: SteveMD2 on May 9, 2008 11:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we are dealing with here is keeping nothing less then the American Christian Taliban at bay. Can you imagine their desires would go back to criminalizing masturbation. Of course everyone would keep doing it, and the rule of law becomes just that little more disrespected. They don't mind that because they want to replace the rule of law with their bible, and make us into a Christian Saudi Arabia.

When I was a youngster, I remember stories like you would go blind from masturbation. If we wonder where they come from, it is from exactly the same people who hide their perverted priests who attack little boys and girls, and in their next breath preach about moral values. Total hypocrisy. Why - because deep down in their bowels (they don't have a heart) they suspect that much of what they teach is wrong, lies, terrorism, and scam insurance policies e.g. life after death.

The so called religious right is hardly different then those who gave us 9/11, and the more power they get the worse they will become, for that is simply a truth about mankind all through history. And if you look at Bush, McBush, etc, and ask yoursself what the current version of the repub party represents, it is afghanistan taliban wannabes in America.

The war on terror needs to be waged here before we deal with the Muslim fanatics, or we won't have a country worth saving. We will become just like the muslim fanatics, Christian version, and that just could be the setup for a world war based on religion, and the end of civilization. All in the name of control freak religions and their God of Greed for power, and of course the root of all other evil, money.

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

Continued........
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on May 10, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As regards your attitude towards hate crimes legislation – you overlook the fact that hate crimes are crimes impacting an entire community. Hate crimes are intended to send a message to all members of the community concerned. There is a qualitative difference between a crime in which a person bashes the brains out of a victim in order to steal that person’s wallet and a crime in which the person bashes the brains out of a victim because the perpetrator hates gay men. The second crime impacts more than just the gay victim – it terrorizes all members of the gay community, and is motivated by an entirely different set of psychological dynamics. For the record – hate crimes cover EVERYBODY, because they are written in terms that identify a characteristic possessed by all people, and enhance penalties for crimes perpetrated against people because of a particular expression of that characteristic. All people have a sexual orientation – all hate crimes statutes that enhance the penalties for assaulting somebody based on hatred of that person’s sexual orientation cut in both directions. If I, as a gay man, attack and kill somebody based on my hatred of heterosexuals, I am liable to be prosecuted under the same hate crimes statute that is invoked when the characteristics of the victim and the perpetrator are reversed. Hate crimes statutes have been found to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court – I refer you to Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Wisconsin hate crimes statute, finding that the statute in question did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mitchell remains good law to this day.

As the columnist wrote – this is not about “special rights.” When the US Supreme Court invalidated Colorado’s “Amendment 2” in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the Court, commenting on whether civil rights laws that include sexual orientation in their protective ambit confer upon gay people “special protections,” write as follows: “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.”

Kudos to SteveMD2 for identifying the real issue – there exists in the US a moral “Christian” Taliban that is utterly determined to eliminate any form of protection prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, and that wishes to bring back criminal penalties for openly gay men and lesbians. This “Christian” Taliban opposes contraception (I have actually had extended debates with people from this Taliban who oppose contraception!), opposes equality for women, opposes equality for gay people, opposes abortion, and is bitterly opposed to gay marriage. These people are utterly determined to impose their theocratic agenda on the US people…

Your message reeks of bitterness and anger. Why don’t you actually state the cause of your anger and make it clear to us what is really bothering you?

PHILIP CHANDLER

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

Who needs to grow up?
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on May 10, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that it is YOU who needs to "grow up."

Prior to the handing down of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), it remained perfectly legal in about 14 states for the police to arrest me and for the state to prosecute me simply for having sex in the privacy of my own home with another consenting adult. Lawrence was written in tones that made it clear that the case it overturned – Bowers v. Hardwick, 378 U.S. 186 (1986) construed the issue much too narrowly. In Bowers, the Court was faced with the same question as that with which it was faced in Lawrence – but in Bowers, the Court held that sodomy statutes were constitutional as applied to gay men and lesbians. As the Lawrence Court pointed out, the Bowers Court construed the issue much too narrowly – the Bowers Court construed the issue as being whether or not the US Constitution granted homosexuals the “fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” This crabbed and overly narrow interpretation of the right asserted by the plaintiff was recognized as such by the Lawrence Court, which opined that the Bowers Court was wrong when it framed the issue so narrowly, writing that this interpretation revealed “the Court's own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.”

I am not a member of a “special interest group.” I am an openly gay man, and I am sick and tired of having to justify my existence to people who think that I made a conscious moral choice to be who I am. This is not about “special rights” – this is about equal rights, and the struggle for recognition of the fact that gay people are as worthy of protections from discrimination as are black people, or multiracial people. In Lawrence, the Court recognized that I am entitled to respect for my private life, and that the state may not intrude on this aspect of my identity. (“The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”)

CONTINUED ABOVE......

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

Gay rights are leading the way
Posted by: justbrent on May 11, 2008 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a constitutional law scholar, and I don't think that anyone should underestimate the importance that gay rights advocates have played in the recent court decisions that have broadened personal freedoms. Lawrence v. Texas only happened because dedicated gay rights activists fought for years to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld Texas anti-sodomy laws. Nobody else was fighting for sexual privacy and, in fact, most people thought it was a lost cause.

I do want to point out, however, that the Reliable Consultants decision does signficantly more than just uphold a right to sexual privacy. It actually held that any law that is predicated solely on the government's desire to impose morality on its citizens is unconstitutional. Thus, people don't just have the right to own and use sex toys, they have the right to buy and sell them as well.

If anyone is interested, they can read more about it in my blog entry on the decision.

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