Law

Grit TV: Why Prop 8 Won

Chris — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:49:50 -0800

I highly recommend this episode of Grit TV for insights on the recent defeat for same-sex marriage rights in California via the passage of Proposition 8. The election results have produced a lot of anger and heat, and the conversation here manages to bring some light to what is a much more complex issue than is shown in most media or activism.

Your Dose of Irony For the Day

Chris — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:26:08 -0800

Los Angeles Protests Stop Mormon Marriages

It's one of those odd twists that leaders of the Mormon Church probably never saw coming. Whenever opponents of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that eliminates the right of gays and lesbians to legally marry in California, protest outside a Mormon temple, they effectively stop church members from getting married, according Levi Jackman Foster, an ex-Mormon who lives in West Hollywood.

[...]
"A temple is the only place (Mormons) can get married," Foster says, "if they want to get sealed to God."
A Mormon temple, in other words, plays a vital role in a religion that strongly promotes marriage among its members.
read more

Tell the candidates and the media to talk about sex like (reasoning, honest, courageous) adults!

Elizabeth — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:41:00 -0700

From RH Reality Check, Care2 and The Petition Site:

In the final presidential debate, Senators Obama and McCain debated abortion, sex education and Roe v. Wade. When this important issue comes forward, let's demand that the campaigns and the mainstream media engage the full range of sexual and reproductive health issues and not treat women's reproductive health like a political football. Demand an honest discussion on:

- comprehensive sex ed v. abstinence-only programs,
- contraception and efforts by the far-right to take it away,
- life and health exemptions for mothers with crisis pregnancies,
- U.S. ranking 41st among nations in maternal health,
- high costs of contraception and reproductive health care, especially for unemployed and uninsured, and
- HIV/AIDS and its impact in the US and around the world.

The campaigns and the media should honestly discuss the complexities of sexual and reproductive health and not reduce the topic to abortion soundbites from extremists fanning the flames of the Culture War.

Let's talk about sex like adults, use medical facts and discuss the best public health strategies to give all Americans the tools to lead sexually healthy lives.

We cannot expect sound sex-related policy if we can't have courageous, reasoned, honest conversations about everything connected to sex. If you agree, please click here to sign a petition directed at the presidential candidates and the mainstream media, calling for an educated, evidence-based, and adult conversation about all aspects of sexual health and sexual rights.

Technorati Tags: law, politics, media, sex

Good news in Connecticut!

Elizabeth — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:11:09 -0700

Good news from Connecticut this morning: The CT Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws apply to same-sex couples making it the third state to allow same-sex marriage. Even better news: The governor, Jodi Rell, though she does not agree with the decision, will not challenge it. Of course challenges may come from elsewhere. There is a question on the November ballot asking whether direct initiatives should be allowed in CT, as they are in CA, where voters in November will be able to decide directly whether the state's constitution should be amended to expressly limit marriage to couples who fit the one man and one woman formula.

Here's a link to the Connecticut decision (PDF). Click here to read more.

First they came for the street workers...

Elizabeth — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:10:07 -0700

Thanks to Morpheus (of the NYC Alt Events list) and to Doug Henwood I have these New York Post and New York Daily News stories about the recent persecution of NYC BDSM dungeons and the political response of the pro dommes who work in them. This Daily News story details the raid on Rapture, closing it down and arresting one of its workers (who later saw prostitution charges against her dropped as long as "she stays out of trouble"). And this Post story discusses the nascent attempts of dommes to organize, hiring an attorney, beginning the process of forming a political action committee and hopefully, eventually, a union.

Unfortunately one of the arguments being made, and it is very understandable, is that "BDSM isn't the same as prostitution." From the Daily News piece: Click here to read more

Feminist researchers challenge UK anti-prostitution Big Brothel project

Elizabeth — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:14:07 -0700

We are advocates here for solid research on sex work, especially on working conditions across the many sectors of the sex industry. It is especially galling when bad research, often bad enough to be called "research"-in-quotes, gets passed off to support public policies that make working conditions more dangerous (e.g., driving sectors of sex work further under ground or making it harder to report crimes or workplace dangers).

Recently the UK has been taken by a storm of anti-prostitution "research" that is being used to support policies that would criminalize the purchase of sex. There was Melissa Farley in Scotland "studying" men who purchase sex (we debunked that here) and now there is the Poppy Project's "Big Brothel" investigation by Julie Bindel and Helen Atkins, purporting to look at the workings of establishments where women sell sex to men. I am glad that a growing number of well-organized feminist researchers are publicly challenging these projects. They clearly highlight the ethical and methodological flaws in the studies and the sensationalistic ways that they overgeneralize from flawed findings. It seems sometimes that the anti-prostitution "researchers" are so disgusted by their topic that they can't take it seriously. Below is a summary provided by the UK researchers who are most actively challenging this kind of work and who need the support of everyone who takes sex workers seriously.

Click here to read more.

White House Witch Hunters Watch While We Wank

Lou FCD — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:33:02 -0700

What turns a person on? Is what arouses one person the same as what arouses every other person? Should it be? According to the current wave of successful obscenity prosecutions by both federal and state governments, the answer is not only a resounding “yes,” but exactly what is permissible under the law is subject to the whim of the FBI, the local and state governments, and a person's neighbor down the street. Video store owner Rick Krial was recently convicted in Staunton, Virginia, on one of two misdemeanor charges of obscenity and his store was likewise found guilty on one of two similar charges. He and his store still face trial on sixteen obscenity-related felony charges for selling pornographic DVDs to consenting adults for private viewing in their homes. Mr. Krial applied for and received all the proper business licenses and permits required of him, and the videos were made by legally documented consenting adults.

At the heart of this case and others like it is the legal definition of the word “obscene.” What is truly problematic here is that the definition of the word is as malleable as the sixteenth century definition of the word “blasphemy.” Current obscenity laws are based on a 1973 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Miller v. California. From that precedent comes the Miller test, whereby an item is deemed legally obscene (and thus unprotected by the First Amendment) if it meets all three of the following criteria: “a) 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Each of these three standards is so subjective as to allow them to be brandished like Sixtus IV's pernicious bull of 1477.

(Continued below the fold)

What happened in Staunton, part 2: What happens in Staunton won't stay in Staunton

Elizabeth — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:07:00 -0700

A week ago I wrote about the Staunton, VA obscenity trial of Rick Krial. Rick Krial, and his store, were each charged with a range of misdemeanor and felony obscenity counts and were tried along with a clerk on two of the misdemeanor counts. Krial and the store were each found guilty of one; the clerk was found not guilty of both. I wrote about the more philosophical issues of what obscenity means in my last post. This post is concerned with something different. Here I want to make clear why, whether or not you ever plan to travel to Staunton, VA you need to care about this case. The reason: Unlike Las Vegas, the place Staunton's prosecutor most fears, what happens in Staunton isn't so likely to stay in Staunton. Read why below the fold.

What happened in Staunton, part 1: Store owner convicted for selling legally produced porn to adults

Elizabeth — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:59:21 -0700

A couple years ago we had the Alabama Vibrator case. Now we have the Staunton Pornography case. According to NewsLeader.com, Rick Krial, owner of After Hours Video, a store whose express purpose was to sell "adult" material to adults, was indicted on 16 felony charges and 8 misdemeanor charges for obscenity because in his shop he sold pornography to ... wait for it ... adults. From August 12-15 he was tried on two of the misdemeanor charges. He was convicted on one. His store was convicted of the same charge. An employee was found not guilty of the same charges. My attempt to make sense of this is below the fold.

Richmond, KY: Where the tolerance level is shorter than the dresses

Elizabeth — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0700

It appears the tolerance level of her neighbors was shorter than her dress. When 20-year old Kymberly Clem went to the Richmond Mall* wearing a dress she had bought there the day before, she apparently seemed too attractive to be allowed to stay. She was approached by a security guard who humiliated her and forced her to leave because he said that several women had complained to him that their husbands were staring at her. (For the basics, see these stories in the Richmond Register and Fox News. The Fox story includes a photo of the dress.)