Simply put, commission of what the Legislature determines as an immoral act, even if consensual and private, is an injury against society itself. – Judge Chet Traylor, in the majority opinion for State vs. Smith (2000)
In my column of August 17th I wrote about Louisiana’s tyrannical “Crime Against Nature” law and the New Orleans Police Department’s evil game of charging prostitutes under this law so they can be persecuted for at least a decade by inclusion on “sex offender” registries. Since escorts can usually afford lawyers to arrange plea bargains to avoid the “sex offender” status, those convicted under the law are nearly all streetwalkers and the overwhelming majority of them are black or transsexual. The column also discussed Women With a Vision (WWAV), an organization whose “No Justice Project” is dedicated to overturning the convictions of these women so they can begin the process of reclaiming the lives destroyed by the so-called “justice” system. Well, on February 17th regular reader Joyce sent me a link to this story which appeared in the Times-Picayune the day before:
People who must register as sex offenders because they were convicted of engaging in oral or anal sex for money filed a lawsuit against state officials last night [February 15th], arguing the requirement is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Only in Louisiana can people convicted of selling their bodies be required to register as a sex offender, according to the lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights…The registration requirement only affects people prosecuted under the state’s “crime against nature by solicitation” law, which is used when a person is accused of engaging in oral or anal sex in exchange for money. People accused of prostitution, which includes any sex act, are not required to register…
The lawsuit was filed anonymously, but describes the difficulty the plaintiffs have experienced obtaining work and finding housing because they are registered sex offenders. In Louisiana, the driver’s license of a registered sex offender is inscribed with those words in bright orange letters…[they also] appear in a state database and must notify neighbors of their legal status…attorneys for the plaintiffs said the registration requirement erects “insurmountable barriers” to people who are trying to restart their lives. In New Orleans, nearly 40 percent of the people registered as sex offenders are on the registry because of a “crime against nature” conviction. The label…often keeps people from being able to access drug treatment or domestic violence services, said Deon Haywood, director of Women With A Vision…”The toll it takes is devastating,” Haywood said about the registration requirements. “They did what they did to survive and put food on the table.”
Louisiana is the only state that has separate laws depending on what kind of sex acts a prostitute engages in…The Legislature in the last session changed the penalties for “crime against nature by solicitation” to make the first offense a misdemeanor, which matches the potential sentence for first-offense prostitution. Previously, a first conviction of “crime against nature” was a felony. But while a person convicted of prostitution is not required to register as a sex offender, a defendant convicted repeatedly of “crime against nature by solicitation” would have to…plus, people who were convicted…before last year, when the law was changed, still must remain on Louisiana’s sex offender registry…all of the other offenses that require registration…involve some kind of force, coercion, or exploitation of a minor…[such as] rape, aggravated kidnapping of a child or prostitution of a person under 17.
I’m not sure what their chances of winning are; Louisiana has a long history of aggressively repelling all challenges to its 205-year-old sodomy law. Even after Lawrence vs. Texas struck down all such laws in the United States in June of 2003, the state doggedly held onto its “crime against nature” statute unchanged for a year until a judge specifically invalidated portions of it, leaving intact provisions for prosecuting homosexual groups and those “promoting prostitution”. Also, Louisiana is the only state to have (since 1982) a separate law criminalizing “Crime Against Nature by Solicitation”, and since this law only applies to prostitutes it remained unaffected by Lawrence vs. Texas despite being clearly rooted in the same unconstitutional and discriminatory motivations. However, this is the first challenge in federal court, which could make a big difference.
A week ago yesterday (February 18th) I called Lorie Seruntine, my contact at WWAV, to ask what part the organization had played in organizing the lawsuit (since the news story doesn’t really make it clear), and she explained that WWAV had contacted the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Loyola University Law Clinic and presented the requests for help they had received from the many women involved in the No Justice Project; the case is thus the culmination of about two years of work by WWAV on behalf of these severely oppressed women. Lorie told me that everyone in the program, both staff and members of the community, is very excited about the case and the attention it has attracted in the national media. She furthermore let me know that a long-anticipated revamp of the WWAV website had been completed and asked me to provide a link; observant readers may have noticed its appearance in the “Resources” box in the right-hand column last Friday.
Of course the filing of the case is only the beginning of the fight, and WWAV, the attorneys and the plaintiffs have a long and arduous fight ahead. But regardless of the outcome of the case, you can be sure that WWAV will continue to fight the good fight; Lorie assured me that the organization has developed other strategies toward defeating this terrible law in the event that the court continues the long Louisiana tradition of allowing the government to invade people’s bedrooms and dictate their private activities.
I wonder what the rationale for “oral or anal sex for money” as a sex offense is. I mean, the client didn’t simply consent, he paid for it; and yet the actions of the hooker in question are supposed to damage him and make him a victim?
Or does the rationale assume that the victim of someone selling oral or anal sex is someone else — society as a whole, the Idea of Decency and Morality, the Baby Jesus, etc.?
In an era in which the prostitutes-as-victims creed is the most obvious menace, it is curious to see the prostitute-as-monster creed still alive and kickin’. It’s almost like an old Time Tunnel episode.
As is made clear by the epigram, the rationale is clearly that society as a whole is somehow mysteriously damaged by private acts, either due to mysterious perversion rays spreading through society or, more frighteningly, the notion of “how dare the peasants disobey the rightful edicts of their masters?” 🙁
There is something about sex (as Laura Agustín was saying in the comments to her last post, on that Danish actress) that simply strikes a chord saying ‘danger’ that draws moralists and lawmakers. People love to tell others how they should do things, but above all they love to tell others how they should have sex.
I think of such damage-to-society rationales as the Rome- argument. Basically: if we don’t keep strict sexual mores, we’ll all become a bunch or fat Romans only interested in orgies and no longer capable of military discipline who’ll fall over and be stomped by the next bunch of barbarians to attack the walls of our city. This can only be averted if we keep the stoic, no-fun philosophy of our forefathers, who were staunchly against sex for fun.
In other words: fun-sex => decadence + barbarians at the gate => end of the world as we know it.
Except that it wasn’t sex which doomed the Romans, it was a huge welfare state supporting a bloated, unskilled underclass kept docile by free public entertainment (“bread and circuses”) and the Empire’s allowing unassimilated ethnic groups to live within its borders without even learning Latin.
Oh, wait… 🙁
I’m very glad I’ve heard at least a few Christian preachers going against the evil lie that sex within marriage is ONLY to get pregnant and shouldn’t be for fun. Unfortunately, I’ve also heard some lie and say it should only be for having kids. But, thank God for the 1’s who don’t lie about it and aren’t afraid to speak out. The 1’s like this need to be talked about a lot more instead of the others.
Maggie,
LMAO!
Love,
Emily
Yup. A pity this has never stopped the moralists. If Roman-style social decadencee happens in the US as you suggest, I’m sure the same moralists will show up to blame, not an exaggerated welfare state, but the usual suspects. The gays, the whores, the libertines… They’re always supposed to be the ones to blame when a society falls apart. And the survivors apparently always buy it. Brr.
Invalidated parts of it eh? I guess this is judicial speak for leaving in parts that are discriminatory against groups that it’s still cool to hate. I would love to read the surely convoluted judicial opinion on how that was justified.
I have more faith in the federal courts, though really only because of arguments that can be made under protection of the 14th amendment, not because I trust the individual justices more.
Following a complaint from villagers about the number of people visiting a “quiet country cottage” Devon police found themselves mistaken for clients and invited in to a “masochistic sex dungeon”.
Det.Sgt. Stuarty Gilroy said the 11 officers involved in the raid were “shocked” at what they found. Hundreds of items were seized, including wooden bats, shackles, chairs with straps and sex toys and the “sex dungeon” was dismantled.
The cottage owner admitted running a brothel from his home and will be sentenced next month.
Quote from the police: “We are glad to have disturbed this activity and restored normality to the neighbourhood. We would also like to thank residens who reported the activity to us.”
It would be interesting to know how many REAL crimes were taking place in that neighbourhood while the police were otherwise engaged.
“restored normality to the neighborhood” meaning “ensured thought-control and the supremacy of the police state”. If that’s “normality” I want no part of it. 🙁
It needs to be pointed out on here that people CAN be AGAINST something morally and want no part of it BUT think that there shouldn’t be laws against it. I’m so tired of the evil lie that ALL Christians are against certain things and want to order everyone else to be against them/not practice them and also support the laws against them. Are there Christians of this type? YES! But, there’s also at least a few who aren’t this type. I’m 1 of them. I’ve hated the Moral Majority types for years. I also support the right for Christians to not be part of certain things and they shouldn’t be made fun of for it. As an example, I was once for the Drug War. I’m very glad I had a huge political awakening after 9/11 and then turned against Drug War. My 1st change with it came from Congressman Ron Paul. He’s 1 of the few I’ll support who’s a member of 1/2 of the 2-headed evil monster (Republican Party). When I heard him talk about it, I started to think about it all. What’s NOT changed is I hate drugs except as needed for TRUE health problems and want NO part of them other than that. But I’m now for at least decriminalizing them. I believe like Paul that decriminalization is a start to solving the whole problem. Paul is also against drug use personally. I know that if people use these drugs it’s on THEM. They’re responsible for their own spiritual state just like I am for mine. Christians have the right to preach and it should never be taken away but if people don’t want to be saved, etc., they have that right also. I really wish if the Scripture where Jesus told His disciples to preach everywhere and then move on to the next place was talked about more. I bring it up every chance I get. It blows apart the evil lie that ALL Christians not only preach but also order people around once they do, etc. Thanks for listening.
I totally agree, Laura. As I’ve said before I despise cocaine with a passion; I’ve seen enough of its effects to declare it an abhorrent, evil drug that I want no part of. And I think it should be 100% legal. I also support people’s right to belong to evil organizations and indulge in disgusting sex acts that I personally couldn’t even watch, much less participate in. My personal dislike or disapproval is NOT grounds for banning it in a free society. 🙁
You mean 100%
LOL you’re right! I’ll fix it. 🙂
Agreed. You know, Laura, there are people who think they should impose their viewpoints on everything on others; some such people are Christians, some are not. These are the people I’d like to oppose.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert Heinlein
Dear Asehpe, every chance I get online and off I speak up about the Christians who aren’t the Moral Majority type. I saw an opening with this thread for this because many in society (not all, thank God!) think of Christians right away as people who not only don’t want any part of drugs, etc., but also want to order everyone around. I’m with you 100% that the 1’s who do want to order everyone around are from ALL types of people. I personally like to point this out abou the Christians as I am 1 plus am so tired of the lies/stereotypes about us. I laugh when I hear people say there’s no persecution of Christians in the U.S. I know better, unfortunately. It’s the verbal/written kind that goes on which is bad enough. In other parts of the world, people are still being put in prison for preaching, etc., which is an evil outrage. The lies/stereotypes, etc., don’t help the situation. I saw an opening here and took it which as I said above I do every chance I get. Thanks for listening.
No problem, Laura. I’m not a Christian myself, but I’ve seen Christian missionaries abroad, and I’ve seen both types: the do-as-I-say kind of Christian who goes to aboriginal tribes to tell them to throw away the ‘witchcraft’ and stop worshipping Satan, and the I’m-here-to-learn kind of Christian who actually learns the language, the dances and traditions and who derives pleasure from this contact with an alien world. One of the latter actually became a friend of mine.
(I will say, though, that the do-as-I-say Christian missionaries do seem to get a lot more funding. Their material resources are usually much better.)
Are Christians ever persecuted in the US? I didn’t experience it when I was there. Abroad… depends on the place. Certainly not in Brazil (where I’m from).
That all depends on who you talk to. Christians often claim “persecution” when they aren’t given rights other groups don’t have, such as displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses but not the Code of Hammurabi or the Wiccan “Do what thou wilt, save harm none” (despite the fact that the latter would be a FAR better model for moral government than the Commandments, eight of which aren’t even illegal under American law). There are a few genuine incidents of Christian persecution, but not nearly as many as incidents against non-Christian religions. And alleged “persecution” of Christians pales into insignificance beside the persecution of sexual minorities. 🙁
Here’s to WWAV and the chance for some justice in the Bayou State!
{raises glass}
So it’s a “crime against nature” to PAY for it? I guess they think that only humans use “money”. But there are plenty of species in which the (usually) male uses objects to entice the females to have sex. They build nests, use shiny objects, offer food, etc. On object of value to the female is offered by the male to entice her to mate. Seems pretty “natural” to me. Perhaps the legislature should watch more the Animal Planet channel more often.
You may enjoy this article from October. 🙂
I say thank God we’re able to not be like many animals! From my teen years, I’ve hated many things that not only go on but are PUSHED by many in society with the whole dating thing. Why do so many act like these “rules” are sacred? “Rules” like it’s horrible/wrong if women buy men dinner and men have to pay for SOMETHING if they want to have sex. I purposely have broken these “rules” and never want to change that. 1 of the things I loved about using personal ads to meet people was you could just lay things out in your ad so that when you did meet there wasn’t any game playing/lying going on. Too many men in society are afraid because of these “rules” to be as honest as they’d like to be. Thanks for listening.
In the United States, “persecution” of Christians is pretty much either requiring Christians to follow the same rules as everybody else (no taxpayer-funded displays of religiosity or proselytizing) or the fact that Christians, like everybody else in the world, are sometimes made fun of and described in stereotype.
Personally, I don’t consider that “persecution.” When you’re told you can’t have your building that you gather in, or you best not be caught praying to THAT God, or you have to pay a tax other religions do not, THEN you are being persecuted, and that doesn’t happen to Christians in the US.
Being treated just like everybody else (except when you’re treated better) is not persecution, and never will be.