Sex and the Supreme Court: The True Story of Lawrence v. Texas
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- "There are some things a state can not do to direct the moral content of your life," explains author and law professor Dale Carpenter, "and controlling your sexuality is one of those things."
In his new book, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas, Carpenter outlines both the back story and the importance of the 2003 Supreme Court case that invalidated American's sodomy laws. "It revives a constitutional doctrine that protects a right to liberty and privacy and sexual autonomy for adults."
Reason Magazine's Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Carpenter to discuss his book, the story behind the landmark case, and how a baby shower gift became an indicator of changing attitudes inside the Supreme Court.
About 8:45 minutes.
Shot by Meredith Bragg and Anthony Fisher. Edited by Meredith Bragg.
Go to www.reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's CZcams Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
...the ridiculous number of reactionaries in this comments section highlights one of libertarianism's issues: too much social conservatism that smacks of hypocrisy. It's a shame since I sympathize with some libertarian ideas.
Too many libertarians deep down are just small state fascists.
Well for once when the police lie something good happens as a result. How strange to attribute at least partially the success of a landmark civil rights case to the beneficial effects of corrupt cops perjuring themselves on the witness stand. Is there anything stranger than the American justice system?
All you have done is state the definition of rape. You have not explained why a sexual assault is worse than any other kind of assault. Assaults cause emotional trauma. Many non-criminal acts, such as teasing or gossip, can cause emotional trauma. Try again.
Libertarians seem to be unique in building a wall between moral principles and political policy. I don't do drugs, and I'll tell you you're stupid if you do, but I'm still for complete drug legalization. Morally, I agree 100% with the pro-lifers, yet politically I'm pro-choice because government is no solution to the problem. I'm not gay, but I'm 100% for gay rights.
I'm also 100% for your right to speak your mind--but NOT when you use government to enforce it.
In most states, it's not referred to as 'rape' but 'sexual assault'. Under this, rape is a subset of assault, rather than an attempt to regulate sexual behavior. Most rape is not done with a sexual frame of mind, but one of humiliating the victim. Rape is an assault first, and a sexual deviance second. It's an assault with the intent to commit both bodily and psychological harm, which is why it's harsher than an ordinary assault.
Agreed, genetic diversity is preferable.
I am primarialy pointing out that if your family has a trait for, Hemophillia (keeping the royalty of England example) rather you breed in family or out, if your partner's family also has a tendency for Hemophillia you're right back to the same odds again.
In short, if the family has no heriditary negative traits, you actualy take a bigger risk by going outside of the family, oddly enough.
One of the biggest problems in this area is the distinction between morality and the law. With libertarians I am never sure whether they are saying that a moral issue is none of the government's business or none of my business. The latter contradicts the core of libertarianism: freedom of conscience.
I am a Christian and believe homosexual behaviour to be sinful. I have the right to have and express that opinion, and to denounce anything my conscience tells me to. Being free means being good.
I agree with you that marriage is more of a duty, but marriage wasn't a duty for people were going to sexually active. Marriage was a social contract saying that a man would provide for and take care of the wife and children, as long as the wife was faithful. You also remember that marriage were more important for the upper classes, because it was an effective way of transferring property and wealth. Marriage wasn't exactly important for the lower society,until after the middle ages.
The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s in general, has caused health risks, social and economic problems. Indeed, I would argue that the biggest cause for the increase in poverty, illiteracy, and crime is not big business or politicians, but a loosening of sexual morality that began in the 1960s. Homosexuality is only one part in a larger difficulty, and I'm not letting anyone off the hook. As to your other point, marriage in the past as been seen as more of a duty than a 'right.'
I read Dale Carpenter's book "Flagrant Conduct." Highly recommend!
The backstory is really fascinating, especially the myriad recollections of police officers, even basic facts like how many men were in the apartment.
It isn't a matter of belief, that's the way the law works. It would be a stupid law, but it would be constitutional.
If you insist on telling me to go away because you are unable to answer my questions, fine, but do not pretend intellectual superiority at the same time.
It's not imposing anything. The default state is that I have those rights. If you try to infringe on them, you're imposing, not me by fighting back.
BTW, the penal law is not based on rights, it is based on prohibited behaviours and duties.
There is no legal concept that says a crime is more serious because it is "personal."
I have not been hostile toward you, yet you constantly attack and insult me. Note that you responded to my comment, not the other way round. You just repeat your assumption over and over again without providing any rational basis for it, with insults and foul language thrown in for good measure. If you don't like my comments, stop responding to them.
I like education, but human nature doesn't change all that much, and if you think you can educate the mass of people into not making mistakes that could kill them or cause them irreversible financial difficulty, then you are probably deluding yourself and you are not doing them any favors. BTW, I fail to see anything 'oppressive' about some form of sexual restraint for all persons (and not just for gay men), and for thousands of years such sexual taboos were just a matter of fact.
You sound like a wonderful human being who is full of salubrious thoughts and feelings. I bet your friends and family find you a real joy to be around. Cheers!
By what standard do you declare the term "ill-defined?" Is there a correct definition beyond your personal prejudices?
But why is it a specific crime, rather than just being an assault?
Again, rape is termed as 'sexual assault'. Sexual is an adverb describing the assault. This means that the crime is still an assault first, and not a regulation of sexual activity.
I sincerely hope that you can see why applying this argument to consensual sexual relations is a fallacy. Consensual sex is not an assault, and arguing that the government can regulate it because it regulates sexual assault is a flaming non-sequitur.
To them, the activist think that they have the right to get married to the person they chose. Since they believe that marriage is right and all. Secondly, the straight lifestyle also causes health risk, because of the hookup culture.
How come prostitution isn't on the debating table?
+affection impression because of this whole Purity bullshit agenda with is pretty unfactual, I believe it should not just be on the table, but also legalized because it's an activity between only consenting adults, nothing more than that.
A valid point. I think the prohibitions against rape were on the basis of
However, today, I think most people rationalize the illegality of rape on the basis of it being sexual activity forced on one group by another: in the same way that battery is a crime.
As I remember (could be wrong) she didn't just say "hey check out Gary Johnson", she portrayed Ron Paul in a negative light, and then propped up Gary Johnson on national TV. As far as personal opinions, Ron Paul is entitled to his personal opinion on state sodomy laws, just as you are. Constitutionally speaking, the Tenth amendment addresses this. It seems to me sodomy laws are unenforceable anyways.
When you assert that Congress cannot make this law or that, you ARE imposing your morality on the people who elected Congress. My question, however, was what is the rational basis for saying that "consenting adults in the privacy of their own home" should be the only moral standard for sexual activity? Simply stamping your feet and saying "because I am better than you" is not an answer.
If the answer is so obvious, then you should be able to explain it easily. And I am clever.
Among libertarians, "rights" are part of the individual. But even if you only apply it to government, the government cannot prohibit non-aggressive immoral behavior *because it doesn't have the right to do so.*
You really believe that people have a right to restrict your voluntary transactions with the M&M dealer just because they're the majority? That's just sad.
You are trying to apply pop psychology rather than answer the problem. There are many ways of inflicting humiliation and psychological harm without using sex (trust me, I have Asperger's and was bullied every possible way), but sexual assault has a special statute and more extreme punishments. Most sexual assaults are "date rapes" where the perpetrator is seeking sexual pleasure as his primary motive, as opposed to the psychopathic rapist you describe.
Hardly. In the segment Katherine Mangu-Ward was introduced as a senior editor for Reason. Even worse is I question if she even holds her stated opinion against Ron Paul, or if she just fabricated the narrative to get a spot on national TV. Thorbie your arguments are weak. She went over and far beyond what you claim. It makes me question if any video, interview, or article by Reason is as misguided and exaggerated as what I saw.
But who are you to intrude of people's personal lives? I think that people have the right to do what they want as long they're not infringing on people's right.
She didn't say "hey check out Gary Johnson" or prop him up. She just said Paul was getting a lot of coverage and was doing very well in straw polls despite being seen as a fringe candidate. She only brought up Gary as an example of someone who has similar views but was getting no traction and wasn't even being invited to the debates. You can watch it again. She didn't endorse anyone. You're digging for a narrative that's just not there.
Well the original rape statutes pertained to sexual assault by means of penetration, basically because society placed [and still places] a high value on protecting the sexuality of women.
Of course there will be a moral component to all laws. In order to have made theft and murder illegal we must either place value on life and property or consider acts of theft and murder 'immoral' in some sense, or both.
There is no evidence linking incest to birth defects.
Closest you will get in citing the high Hemophilia rate in the English royal family line.
Cleopatra was the offspring of 7 generations of Brother sister incest, yet was fluent in multiple languages by 13 and one of the most brilliant political leaders in history (Despite her poor choice in men)
I'm having a hard time to believe that this is a new phenomenon. Gay people our lesbian have been around for a long time.
Side note ot our other conversation:
Personally, I am totaly cool with Prostitution being legalized, most notably because it could be taxed to help provide healthcare when the inevitable STDs pop up as well as licensed and regulated to help minimize the chance of STDs spreading, not to mention providing a safer eviroment away from violence for the prostitutes in question
I still think you're overreacting. Reason isn't allowed to endorse anyone anyway. How could they have thrown him under a bus if there was no bus to begin with? How can you call her a deplorable person for simply having a difference of opinion than you? It's also not a difference of opinion on policy either. it's an opinion on Paul's electability, which even Paul has doubts about. An evangelical christian could say Santorum will not be president and still agree with him. Is that deplorable?
what was the question and what was his respond
So you admit that you have no rational basis for your opinion, beg the question, and insult me personally? Nice.
What is the rational basis for your "rights?"
But why is the second a more serious affront? Personal taste?
Hey this is the same lady that threw Ron Paul under the bus for Gary "doesn't have a clue about the Constitution" Johnson.
I wounldn't be so hard on her. Reason doesn't endorse any candidate and it's contributors may privately support a variety of different candidates. Btw, Ron Paul was against Lawrence v. Texas. He thinks states should be allowed to ban sodomy.
(shrug)
Like I said, not disagreeing that diversity is better in the gene pool, just attacking the myth that the incest is the cause of the defects when the potential for them was there regardless.
Its a hypothetical question until it isn't. Just type into Google: 'Nicola Yates and Andrew Butler'
People CAN have moral principles in line with libertarianism, but you don't HAVE to to be a libertarian. See my recent podcast where I named C0nc0rdance Biggest Bogon Emitter.
That is a lie. Talk to people who do testing with white mice or anyone who does domestication.
Ask gary johnson a simple question about the constitution next time you see him. I have, and the dude attempted to refute the entire Constitution. Get a clue sir. SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES.
Ironic because Ive been to SanFran, manhattan all the liberal spots but I have never seen more gay men than since Ive moved to Dallas.
The concept of rights is fairly recent, and usually applies to constraining the power of government, not the individual. The idea of prohibiting behaviour or declaring duties is based on moral principles.
ignorance isn't a virtue
So I watched the clip again.. I don't agree with your narrative whatsoever. She started her episode saying "Ron Paul will not be President"... and continued with "he is a fringe candidate". "he is incoherent" "he doesn't have a plan to be President" "He is terrible when he talks about politics" "he knows he's never going to get there" ....Katherine Mangu-Ward you chose to show how much of a deplorable person you could be on national tv and it reflects badly on unreason magazine.
Though he thinks sodomy laws are ridiculous.
im high i meant forgets not from gets lol but yea Gray is Traditions Libertarian so is The Judge
The law in rape cases does not punish sexual imorality, it punishes the idea of non consent which can be very damaging to a person who did not consent to the sexual act.
Yea but how many families are that lucky?
sounds like if the congress use the Constitution we wouldnt be have these problem just like the pilot how from gets to look at his checklist
Is there such a thing?
When you you the constitution to overrule a law, you are saying that a person's individual rights supersede the democrat rights of the majority to make laws. As such, it is the very definition of imposing morality.
I make a distinction between agreeing with the law against sodomy (I don't) and the ability of government to make such laws. The constitution grants tremendous latitude to the states to make laws, and if the courts go to far in restricting that power we may end up with a society that is ungovernable.
Sexual behaviour is like any other behaviour, and is not beyond the power of the state to regulate, even though I lean toward your position in practice.
Right to privacy. No government, state, local, or federal, should be able to intrude on someone's personal life to such an extreme degree.
@@Plasticsoldier64 Which amendment is that?
There is no right to privacy. Activist judges made it up. Some things are protected however.
Gay sex is not one of them.
You cannot molest a child in the "privacy" of your own home and claim you have a right to break that law because "privacy"... dork
@@chris-tf6gz
I am suggesting that a right to privacy does not mean that you can break the law so long as you are being private. I am using the generally accepted law against child molestation as an example.
I could just as easily have used prostitution or drug usage as an example. It just doesn't have the same rhetorical impact as using a law most people would not argue against.
@@maurygoldblat8982 Compelling state interest test exists. Consensual sexual act is a different issue from child molestation.
What does that even mean the only person other than Ron Paul that would resort the Constitution is Gary Johnson do some research before you speak you like a Obama supporter
I think we're in agreement and have reached consensus =)
p.s. Genetics aside, I still find the idea more than a little creepy from a personal perspective, just not a clinical one ;)
34lbs posted "fuck i can already tell this is gonna be one of Reason's boring ones.
If there is a wall between morality and the law, what good is the law? Milton Friedman said that for a law to be effective it must be seen to be moral. Most people, even thieves, agree that stealing is not just bad public policy but wrong.
Ultimately, if you say that it wrong to legislate morality you are allowing your moral principle (that it is wrong to legislate morality) to influence your views on public policy. It is self-defeating.
ucmj does the same thing
Of course, you are absolutely right. I fully expect to be ridiculed, shunned, and insulted. That wasn't my point.
I am trying to say that the only way we can have liberty is if people behave honorably without government oversight. A promiscuous, self-indulgent people are doomed from the beginning. Chaos is the enemy of liberty as much as the tyrant.
I think we probably agree on more than we disagree about, since I believe in a much more limited government than we see today.
You are starting with the assumption that a thing is wrong only if it directly harms another person. There are many just things that harm other people, such as firing an employee or dumping a girlfriend. There are other things which, while not directly harmful to others, undermine our societal structure and culture.
To state that the only morality is "direct harm" morality is to impose that morality on those of us who see things differently.
Let me put this another way: if someone takes a picture without the subject's knowledge or consent, it is not a crime UNLESS it is taken for a sexual purpose. That is an imposition of sexual morality by the state that I think most rational people would agree with. I am not in favour of anti-sodomy laws, but I think the court went to far in declaring them unconstitutional.
From a secular standpoint, marriage has always been seen as a duty for young people who were going to be sexually active so that society would not be burdened by the things that encumber it today: fatherless homes, single-mother dependency on public funds, renegade children growing up on the street who cause crime and other problems. This idea of secular marriage as some sort of a 'right to personal happiness' thing did not really exist until the creation of 'no fault' divorce in several states.
So you agree with me. Excellent. Law is either based on moral principles or it is just a naked exercise in power.
Actually, the West is losing population radically. The places that are gaining population are the brutish and repressive parts of the world. Do you think this is a good thing?
But why do you use the standard of "consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?" Are you not just imposing that standard on everyone else?
The state can and does control how you act sexually. Rape is considered a more serious crime than assault. You can face much more severe consequences for merely touching someone sexually without consent than for an assault causing injury.
Should rape statutes be revoked and sexual assaults prosecuted as just plain assaults?
I am not comparing homosexuality to rape, nor am I calling homosexuals rapists. I am simply making the case that the law does punish sexual immorality.
I know this comments is old but This made me lose brain cells
Nothing semantic about it. The voters have the democratic right to elect lawmakers to laws. If you want to overrule those democratically made laws, you must demonstrate that I have violated a specific right.
States can ban blue M&M's if they want to. I would not support such a law, but there is no right to blue M&M's or to buggery.
But why does adding the sexual component result in a much more serious penalty? If I assault you with a cream pie there is no special penalty for edible assault. Such crimes are rarely prosecuted. Sexual assaults which do not result in physical injury are punished more severely than common assaults that do.
Humiliating someone is not illegal, even if it harms someone emotionally.
What if a father wants to have a baby with his daughter and she is okay with it? Its against the law even if the daughter even if she is older than 18.
How is that similar to two consenting adults, who have no biological relations?
I totally agree. It's completely unjust.
"Two men in a committed relationship"is an oxymoron.