Prostitutes And Porn: 1st Amend. Protects Porn But Not Prostitutes? Absurd CA Supreme Court

STEVELACKNER.COM ^ | November 24, 2011 | Steven W. Lackner

[exnavy]

I implied nothing of the sort. You twist words as good as any liberal can.

[monocle]

I am not twisting words? You should have said “Any consensual sex... .

[PieterCasparzen]

The true descendants of the Puritans of the Northeast are the Liberals of the Northeast - same desire to control aspects of peoples’ lives. The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex.

True descendants: I don't think you mean literal biological descendants, since there are tens of millions of them all over the country and their current religious beliefs mostly differ from their forefathers.

Perhaps you mean the true descendants in terms of what you call the "desire to control aspects of peoples' lives" which you attribute to Liberals of the Northeast. I see virtually no attempt at all by liberals of the northeast to control anything related to morality; in the northeast most anything goes. In fact, eastern Massachusetts and the Cape Code area, where the "Pilgrims" first landed, is a bastion of homosexuality that stands out like a sore thumb to even a traveller passing through.

In regards to the gov't having no business, etc., we perhaps have no common understanding of morality. I am a Christian in the Reformed tradition, which is what the "Puritans" were, which I hope does not make you rush to point the finger of "ha!" at me - at least too quickly !

Perhaps we can agree that there is a lot more in the Bible than just guidelines for conduct relating to sex.

In fact, there is much more to the Bible than I can quickly convey to you here, of course.

Any truly believing Reformed Christian will know that the Bible (the Word of God) specifically directs them to not force anyone to believe, repent or even improve their moral conduct. The Bible, in various verses, tells us that this is ultimately futile and actually meaningless in effecting the person's salvation. If I convince or force someone to refrain from sexual immorality - it does nothing to merit that person's salvation ! Little known fact, outside of those who really know their Bible. Without salvation, a person at their death is destined for eternal damnation; eternal separation from God. Therefore, when a true believer sees a person caught up in sin, their concern would be with the person's soul, and if anything they would simply testify of the Gospel (good news) to them.

Sex outside of marriage, historically, was recognized by society to cause what we call today "single mothers". For thousands of years, it was known as "the fatherless" or bastard children. Sex outside of marriage also causes the spread of disease, but of course, STD's were not understood until relatively recently. In most societies of the past, life would often be very hard on families where daughters became pregnant but had no husband. Hence, daughters were married to men and would leave their home and start their own family with their husband. This was pretty much par for the course for all of history until after WWII. If you wanted to have sex with your neighbor's daughter - you would have to marry her first, so you wouldn't start making your neighbor pay for your children.

Christianity was brought to Europe in the first millenium after the death of Christ - and European law is largely the source of American law. The arrival of Christianity in Europe formed a new basis of legitimacy for it's rulers as they converted, and, accordingly, their laws came to reflect a Christian moral foundation. The Bible recognizes the difference between civil government and the Church, and that both are God-ordained institutions. It says that the civil government is given "the power of the sword" over people - and that part of God's purpose for the civil government is to restrain evil acts against the innocent.

In the Bible, sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is called fornication, and is prohibited. While this and all other sorts of debauchery happened - and certainly was hidden or ignored, especially by the upper classes - it was never officially condoned to the point of being promoted by the law in Europe or in America, any more than lying or stealing was. That is, until the 20th century.

The idea that "The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex" has no basis in law as a "Constitutional" viewpoint prior to about 1960. One would be hard pressed to accept this, however, if one only read Wikipedia or liberal websites. However, it is clear that it is not a founding principle of America if one reads primary documents, and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from passing laws governing sexual acts. In fact, before 1962, every State had laws prohibiting immoral sexual acts which were held by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional for 215 years.

Sexual immorality laws were not specifically repealed, but, as part of a "standardization" process initiated by the legal profession, namely the American Law Institute, State criminal laws had bulk changes passed into law - and the sexual morality laws were often simply omitted. The ALI had drafted a Model Penal Code, finished in 1962, and this formed the basis for passage of various blocks of law by numerous States.

Modern revisionists sometimes wrongly claim that immorality laws were rarely or never prosecuted. To wit:

Morris County,New Jersey Court Records. December 22,1762. The King vs.JOHANNAH AYRES charged with fornication. She plead guilty. 1,5 fine and 30 stripes on her bare back on 27th day of December 1762.

Simple searches will turn up many case records of prosecution of immorality under the law.

Sodomy laws were upheld in 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick by the Supreme Court, and then, true to it's historical decade-or-two pattern, it reversed itself in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas which had the effect of invalidating all morality laws in the U.S.

Those Justices of the Supreme Court who were in the majority in Lawrence v. Texas can rest easy in this case despite their pathetic attempts at rationalizing their political interests. O'Connor's logical contortions to allow her to avoid advocating overturning the Bowers case, in which she was in the majority, and yet still be in the majority for Lawrence which, according to her four Lawrence cohorts, did indeed overturn Bowers (only lawyers can do this) reveal quite the logical gymnast. O'Connor can rest easy, however, because she based her case on equal protection, the liberal judge's catch-all. And the other four can rest easy also in their claim that Bower's assertion of sodomy being widely and historically comdemned is somehow refutable.

The majority opinion in the 2003 case stated "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual".

Well, what about the enormous number of illegitimate children born in America since 1960 ? The fatherless, all the children of single mothers ? Since the 1960's America has had it's "sexual revolution" going, removing impediments to anyone having sex any time they want with whomever they want. It's been very encouraging for men and women, young and old to feel no need to refrain from sex outside of marriage. But if this government-condoned casual sex produces millions of children, most of them living with single mothers who find it difficult financially to get along, to work and care for children at the same time and therefore need more government services, what then ? Does that not burden the government and the taxpayer ? Is that not a "legitimate state interest" - the cost of having millions of babies with struggling or absent parents ?

No worries, we can all "rest easy", the SCOTUS has wisely taken care of that. They took care of all those unwanted children in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision.

IMHO.

[exnavy]

That’s not what God’s word says.

[exnavy]

Sex is, a gift from the Lord. To be confined to the marriage bed. All other is sin.

[monocle]

"All other is sin."

Words have definite meanings. You are saying all sex outside of marriage is sinful and again your are not excluding nonconsensual sex such as rape and incest.

[muir_redwoods]

Regarding prostitution, one of the oldest civil liberties question is why is it illegal to sell something that is legal to give away? It is ironic that in a supposedly capitalist society, it is the money that makes the act illegal.

[mkjessup]

"German prostitutes may be savvy about avoiding venereal disease, but there has yet to be a condom that can be placed over your heart."

That my FRiend, is one of the most profound statements ever made in this forum.

Kudos to you.

[muir_redwoods]

Since any religion and, in fact, all religions are merely hypotheses, you are welcome to believe in one absolutely but you are not free to bind others to the rules or beliefs of a religion.

[PieterCasparzen]

We have laws against immorality since the 10 Commandments, somehow they seem not to have had the intended effect.

I don't know if you're Christian, but the Bible is the Word of God; everything in it has therefore had the exact effect that God has willed.

I do not understand how the repeal of these blue laws has much of an effect either.

Blue laws in the U.S. concern restrictions like closing businesses on the Lord's Day. Prostitution laws would be classified as morality laws. The effects of rapidly increasing mmorality in the U.S. have coincided with the elimination of laws governing morality starting in the 1960's. There is a big difference in the attitudes and actions of the population when immorality is illegal and forced underground and when it is legalized and allowed to increase and spread throughout the leadership of the nation.

After the war when Gen. Patton swept through here the Americans occupied this village and the rectory served as the American officers' Poof -bordello.

Nowhere does the Bible say that everyone who professes to be a Christian will not sin. In fact, the Bible teaches that every human is born into sin an unable to resist it without the help of the Holy Spirit. This is why a true believer be convicted of his own sin and gladly confess that he is a sinner, and though he may falter (even the Apostles faltered), he generally will experience what is called progressive sanctification in his Christian walk if indeed he is saved. Simply because certain GI's patronized a bordello in WWII, a whole nation or Church is not implicated as hypocrites.

Prostitution has been legal here in Germany and regulated and it seems to be far less problematical than it is in hypocritical, puritanical America.

Problems may or may not be visible, but certainly the wages of sin is death; physical death and spiritual death, eternal separation from God. America today is more like Sodom and Gomorrah than puritanical, as many professing Christians and congregations are heretical, let alone the vast number of unbelievers who reject God. As far as hypocrisy, the Bible in numerous verses - many are Jesus' own words - admonishes the believer to not be hypocritical. So if a Christian is hypocritical they alone are to blame, not America or anyone or anything else. We must remember that it is not hypocritical for a Christian to testify to the truth of Scripture, in fact, they are called to do just that. And Scripture clearly says in many places that sexual immorality is a sin. If I were to say that prostitution is not a sin I would be lying.

We do not need more laws about morality but more morality.

The Bible tells us that the civil government is a God-ordained institution intended to restrain evil. This serves God's purposes by protecting the innocent. Also, Godly leaders of Godly nations are directed to make and enforce laws to that effect. This is because rampant sin will multiply - since people are inherently born into sin and can not resist the temptation to sin without the Holy Spirit, which dwells within believers. If there are only few true believers in a nation, and sin is not restrained, it will snowball dramatically and cause great misery. This is evident in history in the rise and fall of nations. God controls all things, nations rise and fall according to his will and purposes. Sometimes evil nations prosper to serve his purposes (there are many cases of this in history, many of them in the Bible), eventually they are brought low. We do not know the mind of God and therefore to what we are predestined by him to, but it is ours to keep trying regardless. We actually have no other choice since we do not know the future, like a person on the Titanic or in a sports event for that matter, we simply keep trying.

IMHO.

[circlecity]

"We do not need more laws about morality but more morality."

Isn't every criminal law statute on the books a "law about morality"?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You are right of course and I thought that I wrote that I didn’t actually address the legal issue.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Good analogy - well thought out.

To a certain extent this is not so terribly far from how the “escort services” work. No cameraman and no filming, and naturally the service advertised can be upgraded only when the girl and guy are together. These higher paid prostitutes I also generally believe are mostly voluntarily doing it.

But to be honest having seen red light districts in places where it both is legal (or at least tolerated and regulated) and controlled and places where it is underground I generally believe that the former is the least bad choice. Illegality of prostitution neither prevents it, nor does it reduce its availability. All it does is ensure the women, who may already be victims, are further victimized and ostracized.

Of course, this is not necessarily the point of the article. The point is a matter of current law. Your analogy is a perfect example of why some additional clarity might be called for.

[R. Scott]

Much like the question, “Have you ever paid for sex?”
A man takes a woman out for dinner, drinks and a movie. The tab is around $100 and he hopes to get “lucky” and have sex at the end of the date. It might be 3 or 4 dates before he succeeds, he spent several hundred dollars for sex.

[crghill]

Amen and please see my tagline.

[Venturer]

Are porn actress’s Prostitutes? Of course they are.

But todays porn isn’t yesterdays porn.

Todays porn has just as many amateurs in it as professionals.

Men photographing their wives in a performance and submitting it to various sites with or without pay.Swingers who photograph their parties. Group sex and women who have sex at parties with male strippers.

Are these women prostitutes or just whores?
How long do these relationships last after the gratuitous sex? Who knows?

[MrEdd]

The answer is clear; porn should be illegal.

[nathanbedford]

And Einstein's definition of insanity is...?

[Vaduz]

Legal contradiction well think of it like border control it’s how congress operates,it’s all about money.

[circlecity]

"And Einstein's definition of insanity is...?"

So we should scrap the entire criminal code because it hasn't stopped people from committing crimes? Sorry, I'm not connecting those dots.