Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women’s Wrongs - Repealing prostitution laws won’t help anyone.
National Review ^ | October 21, 2004 | Donna Hughes

Posted on 10/21/2004 12:09:37 PM PDT by NYer

At the polling booth this year, Berkeley residents will have a unique voting choice: Yes or no to the decriminalization of prostitution.

Decriminalization means the repeal of measures that outlaw prostitution, soliciting, pimping, pandering, and brothels. Although the vote will take place only in the city of Berkeley, the decriminalization campaign's ultimate goal is the repeal of California state laws on prostitution and related offenses.**

Decriminalization is a more extreme measure than legalization. Legalization would mean the regulation of prostitution with laws regarding where, when, and how prostitution could take place. Decriminalization eliminates all laws and prohibits the state and law-enforcement officials from intervening in any prostitution-related activities or transactions, unless other laws apply.

If Measure Q, as it is called on the ballot, passes, Berkeley will have to do the following: 1) make enforcement of prostitution laws the lowest priority for the Berkeley Police Department; 2) set the city of Berkeley in opposition to state prostitution laws and direct the Berkeley City Council to lobby for the repeal of prostitution laws in the state of California; and 3) require the Berkeley Police Department to report semi-annually to the City Council and Police Review Commission on the enforcement of prostitution laws.

The decriminalization campaign is being led by Robyn Few of the Sex Workers Outreach Project. Few was arrested by the FBI and pleaded guilty in 2002 to a federal charge of conspiracy to promote prostitution in connection with a multi-state prostitution ring. At the time, she was also working for Americans for Safe Access, a group advocating the legalization of marijuana. Few said at a recent conference entitled "Prostitution, Sex Work, and the Commercial Sex Industry" that she was shocked and hurt that marijuana activists subsequently disowned her; after all, she thinks both activities should be decriminalized, so why should one group of people involved in illegal activities discriminate against another? She said she got her revenge by marching topless in a San Francisco gay parade with a sign that read "Sex Workers for Medical Marijuana."

Few's personal background is, tragically, typical for a woman in the sex industry: incest, child abuse, runaway (at age 13), high-school dropout, domestic violence, rape, and stripping — all before she entered prostitution. Few presents herself as a sex worker and an activist for sex workers' rights, but there is one little problem: Her conviction wasn't for soliciting, it was for a federal pimping offense. It therefore stretches credibility to say she is working on behalf of women in prostitution.

Few and her friends have received guidance from a visiting adviser from the Australian sex industry, where prostitution is legal in several states. The Australian activist is helping groups in various cities in the U.S. organize efforts to decriminalize prostitution. They selected Berkeley as their first venue, not only for its liberal voters but also because they needed just 2,100 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Few said that only one out of twelve people they approached signed the petition, but they had great fun "being irreverent" and setting up tables decorated with "balloons with boobs on them."

While Few and friends may be giddy from their in-your-face politics, city officials worry about what the effects of Measure Q would be if it passes. The city manager prepared an impact report that states that if the ordinance passes it will likely increase crime and community complaints in the following ways: 1) Berkeley could become the Bay Area's prostitution center, attracting prostitutes and "johns" (the men who pay for sex acts); 2) the number of robberies, sexual assaults, thefts, batteries, and disturbing-the-peace calls would increase, as would the amount of litter; 3) the exploitation of women and children would increase; 4) rates of sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, and hepatitis would increase; 5) the police department's enforcement activities would be limited; 6) the quality of life in neighborhoods of increased prostitution would decrease; 7) drug activity in houses that cater to prostitutes and pimps would increase; 8) the incidents of violence against prostitutes, such as assault, battery, rape, robbery, kidnap, and murder would increase; and 9) businesses in commercial districts whose customers would stay away due to increasing prostitution and crime would be harmed. The impact report was a sweeping condemnation of decriminalization.

Campaigners for Measure Q try to sell the initiative as promoting women's rights, claiming that decriminalization will end the stigma against prostitutes and enable them to integrate into society as "sex workers." This is utopian thinking that has no basis in the reality of the lives of women in prostitution — women who are defined by how men can and do use them.

What Measure Q activists don't talk about is the impact of decriminalizing the activities of "johns," pimps, panderers, and brothel owners. At a recent conference on prostitution at the University of Toledo, decriminalization advocate Norma Jean Almodovar of the International Sex Worker Foundation for Art, Culture and Education said: "I don't want to arrest clients. They give me money!" Almodovar is another activist who claims she is working for the rights of women, but like many decriminalization activists, she too is protecting the money stream flowing from customers to the pimps and bosses of the sex industry.

Supporters of Measure Q claim that decriminalization of prostitution will decrease the violence against prostitutes. Women and children in prostitution do suffer from extreme violence. Research I've done with Janice Raymond of the Coalition Against Trafficking Women found that the majority of women in prostitution have been physically assaulted and raped, often multiple times, by "johns" (86 percent were physically assaulted, 80 percent were sexually assaulted, and 65 percent had weapons used against them). Removing the penalties against pimps and men who purchase sex acts will not cause them to be less violent.

Presently, prostitution is on the rise in Berkeley, as it is in many cities and towns across the U.S. The impact report says that from 2002 to early 2004 there was a 57-percent increase in calls for police service regarding prostitution. Police data show that Berkeley police are arresting an increasing number of underage girls for prostitution, some as young as 13. Decriminalization would escalate these trends.

Women and children in prostitution do need assistance. According to research by Melissa Farley, a clinical and research psychologist and director of Prostitution Research and Education in San Francisco, 89 percent of women in prostitution want out, but are trapped by violence, addictions, and hopelessness. Decriminalization of the sex trade will do nothing to help them escape; instead, it will ensnare them more tightly.

Passage of Measure Q will make Berkeley a prostitution capital and a destination city for sex tourists and trafficked women and children. Defeating Measure Q will send a clear message that prostitution and the harm it does to women, children, families, and communities are not wanted in Berkeley. Doing otherwise would send a troublesome one.

**Measure Q aims to repeal portions of the following Sections of the California Penal Code: 266, 266d, 266e, 266f, 266h, 266i, 315, 316, 318, 647, 653.20, 653.22, 653.23 and 653.28, which criminalize prostitution-related activities among or between adults.

Donna M. Hughes is professor and Carlson Endowed Chair in Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cangiveitaway; cantsellit; consentingadults; election; politics; privacy; prostitution; sexlaws

1 posted on 10/21/2004 12:09:37 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 10/21/2004 12:12:10 PM PDT by NYer ("The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." St. John Chrysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Legalization would mean the regulation of prostitution with laws regarding where, when, and how prostitution could take place.

Already is legal. The Supreme Court has done away with sex laws (at least for those over age of consent). Constitutional privacy concerns keep the government out of the bedroom. Regulation would only place a government official in there.

If a babysitter can come over to your home in violation of child labor laws, payroll taxes, and licensing requirements, two consenting adults can have sex for money.

3 posted on 10/21/2004 12:13:42 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; scripter; little jeremiah
The impact report says that from 2002 to early 2004 there was a 57-percent increase in calls for police service regarding prostitution.

The adult entertainment industry and pornographers have endorsed John Kerry as their candidate for the presidency, and one pro-family advocate has gone to some lengths to find out why.

Kerry Campaign Keeping Quiet on Obscenity Issue

4 posted on 10/21/2004 12:15:34 PM PDT by NYer ("The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." St. John Chrysostom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

>>Few's personal background is, tragically, typical for a woman in the sex industry: incest, child abuse, runaway (at age 13), high-school dropout, domestic violence, rape, and stripping — all before she entered prostitution.

I think that with the new permissiveness of society, this common profile will change.

It's already acceptable for people to engage in amateur porn. Young women are having sex with both men an women -- and it's promoted as being "cool".

It's not hard for many of these women, who don't fit the typical mold, to make the leap from free sex to paid sex -- especially while they work their way through college.

And if a woman is beautiful, the money is severly tempting. Some [beautiful] escorts make $30,000 per month having sex with as little as 20 johns. Many quit for periods of time, try to go straight, but when money get's tight they jump right back into it. They simply cannot earn the same amount of money any other way.

I think that in five years, the majority of [non street walking] prostitutes will simply be women who hold the idea that it's all simply business. (Note, I'm not talking about druggie street walkers, I'm talking your "higher end" prostitute -- paid escorts/amateur porn starts).


5 posted on 10/21/2004 12:19:18 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My evil side says "let this pass". Then let the conservative documentarians go in and record the stupidity of such freedom. Again, on the evil side, this would be a great wedge issue for the next election cycle.


6 posted on 10/21/2004 12:19:30 PM PDT by searchandrecovery (Socialist America - diseased and dysfunctional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

How many junked cars do you have in your front yard. I'm not insulting you, just wondering.


7 posted on 10/21/2004 12:21:41 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All
There is no reason for prostitution not to be legal. There are quite a few people who are unable to find a partner for sexual relations. Why should the old, ugly or disabled be prevented from sexual pleasure?
People should not be deprived of their status as sexual beings simply because they are unable, under normal circumstances, to have normal human functions and urges fulfilled.
When was the last time you looked at someone in a wheelchair, hideously disfigured, or extremely elder as a potential companion or someone you would be romantically involved with?
8 posted on 10/21/2004 12:23:25 PM PDT by olde north church (Charity begins with "C" if it's the first word in the sentence, "c" if it's not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My ex-postal carrier got married and with her husbands knowledge took a part time job working in a strip club. Her average wage for two evening was $1,000.00+. In three years they were able to afford a luxurious home....cash. One more year and they had a substaintial investment account.

That was when they decided to have children. They now have two beautiful boys whom she stays home to care for. They intend on homeschooling the kids because of their distaste for the public system.

Never in the seven years I have known her has she ever used foul language or behaved like a slut. Her and her husband have attended the same Catholic church as my wife does.

I am giving this example because while I wouldn't want my wife or daughters to do it, it certainly put them 15 years ahead of others who prefer to work the normal tracks of our economic system.

There is financial advantages for those who decide to take the scorned paths in our society.

I am not defending her actions, just giving an example that I am personally aware of.


9 posted on 10/21/2004 12:24:53 PM PDT by B4Ranch (´´Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; They are our teeth for Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; All

>>Few's personal background is, tragically, typical for a woman in the sex industry: incest, child abuse, runaway (at age 13), high-school dropout, domestic violence, rape, and stripping — all before she entered prostitution.

I think that with the new permissiveness of society, this common profile will change.

It's already acceptable for people to engage in amateur porn. Young women are having sex with both men an women -- and it's promoted as being "cool".

It's not hard for many of these women, who don't fit the typical mold, to make the leap from free sex to paid sex -- especially while they work their way through college.

And if a woman is beautiful, the money is severly tempting. Some [beautiful] escorts make $30,000 per month having sex with as little as 20 johns. Many quit for periods of time, try to go straight, but when money get's tight they jump right back into it. They simply cannot earn the same amount of money any other way.

I think that in five years, the majority of [non street walking] prostitutes will simply be women who hold the idea that it's all simply business. (Note, I'm not talking about druggie street walkers, I'm talking your "higher end" prostitute -- paid escorts/amateur porn starts).



10 posted on 10/21/2004 12:26:33 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

>Never in the seven years I have known her has she ever used foul language or behaved like a slut

You haven't paid her to strip, and you haven't been behind closed doors with her. You don't know what you don't know.


11 posted on 10/21/2004 12:27:23 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

How could socialist Berkeley legalize prostitution as it would encourage free enterprise and profit? It would be more in keeping with Berkeley to to make it legal to give away sex or have it provided for the common good by the government, but make it totally illegal to profit from it. I suppose they could justify the action if the workers (i.e. the prostitutes) totally controlled the means of production (sex), but outlawed pimping as that would be worker exploitation by capitalists seeking to make profits from the labor of others.


12 posted on 10/21/2004 12:33:08 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Prostitution (and drugs) should be legal (however, I don't partake in either). It is a personal responsibility issue. For "The State" to dictate what I do in my own home (or with a consenting adult) so long as I don't hurt anyone else is an infringement on my freedom.

Prostitution is the "world's oldest profession" for a reason and it isn't going away. You can now shop for a call girl online and as an earlier poster mentioned, it's now a business (a friend of mine worked vice and they just googled "Escort" and the city). Even an "average" call girl can make minimum of $5k a month with 20 johns (yet another reason for scrapping the current tax system and going to a national sales tax).

I'd suggest for those of you that believe government should be the moral arbiters of society, that you worry more about what goes on in your home and less about what goes on in your neighbor's home.


13 posted on 10/21/2004 12:37:52 PM PDT by LiberalSlayer99 (Follow-Up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalSlayer99
I think the State of Nevada has the best approach to this "situation". My views on abortion are well known, and these ladies are "pros", hence not a problem. Besides, ladies working in a legal "house", have no need of pimp, therefore one more unemployed Democrat. I don't believe it's Gods plan for anyone to engage in that profession, but the Christ I know loves them as much as anyone. Street walkers of course should be illegal as it is in Nevada. AND I guess there's just enough Democrat in me to recognize a new tax source.
14 posted on 10/21/2004 12:49:50 PM PDT by investigateworld ((Oh,Father watch over our service men and women, they are so young and so far from home))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII

I am not advocating the legalization of prostitution. I am just giving you a taste of what the activist Supreme Court decision on sodomy meant.


15 posted on 10/21/2004 12:52:12 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

A pimp is not an employer. He's more of a slave owner. The women give him ALL the money.

In return, he gives them clothes, a place to stay, promotion, and legal/medical coverage until he decides otherwise (or another pimp takes one of his women). He will track down a girl who leaves his pool.


16 posted on 10/21/2004 12:55:30 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
It's already acceptable for people to engage in amateur porn. Young women are having sex with both men an women -- and it's promoted as being "cool".

Amateur sex starts with webcams at home and trips to "Mardi Gras" type celebrations. "Girls gone wild" is considered "acceptable" by the mainstream media now.

How many reality shows have shots of contestants giving a lap dance (clothed) to one another?

17 posted on 10/21/2004 12:58:37 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Agreed. Prostitution should be regulated.


18 posted on 10/21/2004 1:04:40 PM PDT by BrooklynGOP (www.logicandsanity.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

...and does your co-pay cover the cost of all the vaccines, herpes treatments, aids clinics, thousands of illegitimate children, divorce courts, lawsuits, et al? Nooooo, the GOVERNMENT will cover it.


19 posted on 10/21/2004 1:13:27 PM PDT by infidel29 (Before the political left, we were ALL right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: infidel29; All

Why are you wasting your time here when your skills as a clairvoyant are so urgently needed in other places?


20 posted on 10/21/2004 1:32:46 PM PDT by olde north church (Charity begins with "C" if it's the first word in the sentence, "c" if it's not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: weegee
"Constitutional privacy concerns keep the government out of the bedroom."

Lawrence v Texas was not decided on some "right to privacy".

"Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

21 posted on 10/21/2004 1:46:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom

>>you haven't been behind closed doors with her<<

Ever heard the saying:
"The ideal wife is a whore behind the closed bedroom door when evening comes and a perfect lady when the door is open."


22 posted on 10/21/2004 1:49:39 PM PDT by B4Ranch (´´Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; They are our teeth for Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Give the poor gals Bill O'Reilly's number.


23 posted on 10/21/2004 1:50:44 PM PDT by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

heh heh heh.. I'm searching for one of those!


24 posted on 10/21/2004 1:51:49 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom

Your reply is absolutely baffling. Is it some sort of rebuttal?

Using foul language and acting as a slut "behind closed doors" (and, as witnessed, nowhere else) would be exactly what one would be paying for, right?

Are you just going for a debate point here? Just trying to fold your hands over your chest and say "yep, that poster wasn't exactly correct"?


25 posted on 10/21/2004 2:59:01 PM PDT by jiggyboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
ANALYSIS: The implications of Lawrence v. Texas (Jul 9, 2003)

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion declaring that the liberty and privacy rights found within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution confer upon consenting adults a right to engage in sodomy, and seemingly anything else they so choose, within the privacy of their homes.

26 posted on 10/21/2004 5:14:57 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Could ALL men have anal sex with ANY woman?

There was no "unequal protection". All pairs of men and all pairs of women were prohibited from engaging in same sex sodomy.

Your interpretation of "equal protection" would legitimize same sex marriage.


27 posted on 10/21/2004 5:16:48 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Also note, if it was about "equal protection" and not "right to privacy" that struck down ALL sodomy laws, what do you say to the handful of states that saw their sodomy laws (prohibiting the act between all persons, heterosexual and homosexual) ended with this ruling?


28 posted on 10/21/2004 5:18:34 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

I am in other places, I`m just a clairvoyant in my spare time.


29 posted on 10/21/2004 5:19:08 PM PDT by infidel29 (Before the political left, we were ALL right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BrooklynGOP

Government has no business regulating prostitution.

Either fornication laws of old should still stand (prohibiting unmarried sex and adultery) or anyone can have sex.

Payola in the radio industry was not a crime in the early 1960s. The unreported income that radio employees received was a crime. The same would be true of a woman who accepts "gifts" as incentives to go out with someone (and possibly have sex).

The Center for Disease Control has abandoned their post by politicizing AIDS rather than trying to find out the sexual partner history of all those infected.

Since the CDC won't inform possibly infected partners anymore for all STDs, I see no point to having the government regulate potential sex partner to give a USDA-type stamp that this orifice has been determined to be disease free.

If a prostitute is seeing several men a day, there will be no way to guarantee that all of those Johns are getting a sterile "environment".

The same is true of bar sluts who may only be going home with 5 different men a month (and not charging for their services).

Solicitation on the street, "white slavery", houses of prostitution, etc. can all be prosecuted. Individual transactions are pretty much impossible to stamp out. And in the absence of supporting morals laws, somewhat difficult to understand.


30 posted on 10/21/2004 5:27:17 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

Be careful too about institutionalizing legal prostitution.

There are some socialized nations that have and they find (and approve) claims for some people with sexual "disfunction" to visit prostitutes for sexual pleasure.

If a government is going to pay for Viagra tablets and abortions, you can bet that you would eventually also be paying for prostitutes as a taxpayer.


31 posted on 10/21/2004 5:31:58 PM PDT by weegee (To the MSM: "There's got to be a morning after" How can you face us after the lies and distortions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
the majority of women in prostitution have been physically assaulted and raped, often multiple times, by "johns" (86 percent were physically assaulted, 80 percent were sexually assaulted, and 65 percent had weapons used against them)

I suspect these percentages are quite a bit lower in legal establishments in Nevada.

32 posted on 10/21/2004 5:41:10 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (A plan is not a litany of complaints)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee; All

I don't support government or insurance coverage to pay for prostitution. I was simply sharing my opinion for reasons to decriminalize prostitution.


33 posted on 10/21/2004 6:02:26 PM PDT by olde north church (Charity begins with "C" if it's the first word in the sentence, "c" if it's not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

I'm just following some scenarios to possible conclusions. Such events have already occurred elsewhere.

2 men or women can live together without their circumstance being institutionalized.

Just like I say that legalizing drugs would require the legalizing of ALL drugs (including quack medications), otherwise there will always be "something illegal" to restrict. And "taxing the Hell out of drugs" just moves the DEA under the ATF (which is a gun carrying, tax regulating agency); that's no "solution" to me.

In the absence of a government subsidized "safety net", some of these "personal choices" may be acceptable to society (even if they would send some people on a downward spiral), but we have not dismantled the system yet so it is certainly difficult to argue a case for putting more people on public assistance.


34 posted on 10/21/2004 6:10:13 PM PDT by weegee (George Soros has probably spent more on this election that many rock stars make in a year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It's no coincidence that this is happening in Berkeley. The radicals that control things there understand that hedonism is a social-political weapon.


35 posted on 10/21/2004 11:57:15 PM PDT by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Oh, sorry! :)


36 posted on 10/22/2004 3:35:40 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: weegee
"Your interpretation of "equal protection" would legitimize same sex marriage."

Woah!

Where did I even mention "equal protection" much less interpret it? The majority USSC opinion rejected the equal protection argument in Lawrence v Texas.

Lawrence v Texas was badly decided on the right to liberty as protected by the 14th amendment -- but the right must be found fundamental (as abortion was) for this protection to apply, yet sodomy was not found by the USSC to be fundamental.

Yes, Justice Kennedy wrote about "privacy rights found within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment". There are none, of course.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the so-called "right to privacy" was found in penumbras of constitutional provisions other than the Due Process Clause, and that case expressly disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine of "substantive due process".

37 posted on 10/22/2004 7:04:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: weegee; robertpaulsen
If memory serves, the article you linked, [ANALYSIS: The implications of Lawrence v. Texas], was well refuted on a thread at FR last year.
The author is simply wrong in many of his conclusions, as below:

"The privacy right created in Lawrence -- "

Our right to privacy is as old as common law & common sense. It was not "created in Lawrence".

-- is based on the most dubious and most criticized doctrine in the Court's jurisprudence

It is "dubious & criticized" by those who want States to have the power to ignore due process, to infringe upon fundamental individual rights.
States have never been granted such powers.

-- a concept known as "Substantive Due Process." The 14th Amendment states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Untied States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

A straightforward reading of the constitution would seem that this involves two things: the privileges or immunities of citizens (their substantive rights)

Our rights to life, liberty or property are not substantive/ essential?

and proper process -- a jury of one's peers, appointed defense counsel, the right to confront witnesses, etc.

However, the court has held that Due Process also includes certain substantive rights that are "fundamental to ordered liberty" yet for some inexplicable reason not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.

Odd claim. Does this man really think its "inexplicable " that most of our essential/substantive rights are not mentioned in the Constitution? Has he ever read the 9th Amendment, and understood it's impossible to enumerate all of our rights?

Most prominent of these is the right to privacy ---

Privacy is essential, certainly, but I doubt that the framers gave much thought to specifically enumerating the right to be 'left alone'. --- It's an obvious freedom, and would be akin to enumerating our right to lock our doors.

Statist's here on FR seen to think that any individual liberty not specifically mentioned in our Constitution is fair game for State 'regulations', even for outright prohibitions. -- Some, like paulsen, even believe that States can prohibit our RKBA's.
This is 'conservatism'?

38 posted on 10/22/2004 2:02:23 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Has he ever read the 9th Amendment, and understood it's impossible to enumerate all of our rights?"

There you go again, trying to apply the 9th amendment where it shouldn't.

Lawrence v Texas involved a state statute, not a federal one. If the 9th amendment does include a "right to privacy" (and no court has found that it does), that right would be protected by the 9th from federal intrusion, not state intrusion.

If a person is seeking protection from state statutes, the 14th amendment is used. In this case, petitioners used the "due process" clause; to wit:

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

They claimed that they "were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause". Now, in order for the USSC to find this "right to engage in private conduct" (ie., sodomy), the must find this right to be "fundamental to the concept of liberty", which they did not.

39 posted on 10/22/2004 3:23:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Odd claim. Does this man really think its "inexplicable " that most of our essential/substantive rights are not mentioned in the Constitution? Has he ever read the 9th Amendment, and understood it's impossible to enumerate all of our rights?

"Most prominent of these is the right to privacy ---"

Privacy is essential, certainly, but I doubt that the framers gave much thought to specifically enumerating the right to be 'left alone'. --- It's an obvious freedom, and would be akin to enumerating our right to lock our doors.

Statist's here on FR seen to think that any individual liberty not specifically mentioned in our Constitution is fair game for State 'regulations', even for outright prohibitions. -- Some, like paulsen, even believe that States can prohibit our RKBA's.

This is 'conservatism'?

There you go again, trying to apply the 9th amendment where it shouldn't.
Lawrence v Texas involved a state statute, not a federal one. If the 9th amendment does include a "right to privacy" (and no court has found that it does), that right would be protected by the 9th from federal intrusion, not state intrusion.

The Ninth says "the people" retain all of their rights, whether enumerated in the Constitution or not. -- Thus, -- your silly opinion that States can infringe upon our unenumerated rights is simply authoritarian wishful thinking.

If a person is seeking protection from state statutes, the 14th amendment is used. In this case, petitioners used the "due process" clause; to wit: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
They claimed that they "were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause".

Indeed they are. Private conduct that harms no other person is obviously not subject to the regulatory power of the State. NOWHERE, in any of our Constitutions, are any level of our governments granted such a power.

Now, in order for the USSC to find this "right to engage in private conduct" (ie., sodomy), the must find this right to be "fundamental to the concept of liberty", which they did not.

Specious argument. They found the Texas 'law' in question unconstitutional. -- Case closed.

40 posted on 10/22/2004 4:05:26 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson