The Texas Dildo Massacre, or, Reason Number 2,767 Why Gay Rights Matter To Everyone
As you’ve probably heard, the Texas law banning the sale of sex toys has been overturned.
This is excellent news, for all the obvious reasons. Most obviously, Texans can now buy and sell sex toys. People can now open sex toy stores in Texas, run fuckerware parties in Texas, sell sex toys to Texans through the mail without fear of entering murky legal waters. Woo-hoo! Go, Texans! (Good articles about it in the Austin-American Statesman, and in Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
But I want to talk about one of the less obvious reasons why this is astoundingly, excitingly, kick-ass good news.
(Please note: I’m not a legal expert, and I’m definitely not an expert on constitutional law. These are simply the opinions of a smart lay person who’s been paying attention to this issue for a long time, informed by the opinions of people who are legal experts.)
The primary reason for the Texas sex toy ruling — the main precedent cited — was the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which overturned sodomy laws and legalized gay sex across the country. Now, Lawrence was important for sexual civil rights for a whole lot of reasons. Most obviously, it meant that nobody in the United States could be considered a criminal simply for having gay sex. And that has huge implications for things like custody rights, housing rights, employment rights, etc. Before Lawrence, gay people could be — and were — denied all sorts of basic rights . . . because, technically, they were criminals. Lawrence upended all that, and it was hugely important for that reason alone.
But this latest case — the Texas sex toy case, Reliable Consultants and PHE v. Texas — makes it clear that Lawrence has even broader implications . . . for everyone. Gay, straight, everyone.
The Texas sex toy case makes it clear that the Lawrence v. Texas ruling established a constitutional right to sexual privacy in the United States.
And that, people, is HUGE.
Before the Texas sex toy case, we didn’t have that. You might have had it in the particular state you lived in — we’ve had it in California since 1975, when the consenting adults law got passed — but United States citizens did not have any constitutionally guaranteed right to sexual privacy until February 12, 2008.
And we have it now. Yes, the Federal courts have now said that you have a constitutional right to use a vibrator or a dildo. But so much more than that: the Federal courts have now said . . . well, let me quote briefly from the decision.
Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence. (Emphasis mine.)
The Lawrence case didn’t just say that gay sex couldn’t be criminalized. It said that people — all people — have the right to engage in any consensual intimate conduct in their home, free from government intrusion. It said that people’s sex lives are not their neighbors’ business, not society’s business, and most emphatically not the government’s business. It said that the fact that the State doesn’t happen to like a particular kind of sex doesn’t mean they have a right to ban it, or indeed to have any say in it at all.
This case says, “Yup. That’s what Lawrence meant, all right.”
And that has enormous implications. (Assuming it gets upheld, of course; the decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, and I haven’t read anything yet saying whether or not it will be.)
It has implications for sadomasochists. Fetishists. Swingers. Any other sexual minority you can think of. If you’re any of those things . . . you now have a legal right to it, anywhere in the country. And that’s pretty darned important for all those custody rights and housing rights and employment rights and whatnot that we were talking about. It may wind up having implications for porn laws; if we our right to sexual privacy means we can have vibrators, it should mean we have a right to dirty movies as well. (It should have implications for the legalization of sex work, too; but alas, the rulings in both Lawrence and this case made a point of saying that the rulings don’t apply to prostitution. Mistakenly, in my opinion.)
So here’s the lesson for today. Apart from just, “Hooray for sex toys!” and “Hooray for the right to sexual privacy!”
The lesson for today: Gay rights are human rights.
Gay rights are everyone’s rights.
And straight people have a personal vested interest in fighting for gay rights.
This is a point that sex advice writer Dan Savage has made on several occasions. He’s pointed out that the right-wing homophobes who want to stop things like same-sex marriage are the exact same right-wing sex-phobes who want to stop things like birth control and sex education and abortion. Gay sexual rights are often on the cutting edge of sexual liberation . . . and they’re often the first on the chopping block when right-wingers try to turn back the clock.
So I want all the straight people reading this to say a big, heartfelt “Thank You” to the people in the gay rights movement who fought so hard for so many years to get the Lawrence verdict. They are the people who, last week, gave you the right to own a dildo or a vibrator in every state in the country.
And I want you to promise to treat the fight for gay rights as if it were the fight for your own.
Because it is.
This entry was posted on Friday, 22 February 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 4:26 am omnivore wrote:
I believe it was Feministing that recently posted a clip called “The Dildo Diaries” that explained the sort of verbal somersaults necessary to purchase
a dildoan educational model in Texas. I found it highly amusing (Go Molly Ivins!) and at the same time deeply disturbing. There are plenty of conservatives up here in the Northeast, just as I know there are plenty of liberals down there in Texas. We just do things in a different style.Thank you for pointing out the important triumph for civil liberties and privacy that goes along with this ruling. In this day and age of warrantless wiretapping and national security paranoia, it’s good to know that some of our civil rights are being strengthened rather than eroded.
I would like to comment on one concept that you appear to take for granted, however: the dichotomous notion of “gay” and “straight.” In my experience (which is not unsubstantial), I find that human sexuality is much too fluid to fit into these two boxes. Where do bisexuals fall in these categories? What about a female/female couple that never engages in oral sex but instead practices tribadism and manual sex? What about a male/female couple in which the woman bends over her boyfriend? Where does kink fall on this continuum? Or does it? What, exactly, constitutes gay vs straight sex?
I’m not saying that I have the answers to these questions. It’s a bit like asking where poetry ends and prose begins; the more you investigate it, the more the lines blur. Rather, I invite you to challenge the notion that a boundary exists at all.
on Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 11:18 am Carrie Lynne wrote:
Bravo… I am a sexual health educator struggling to establish myself in small-town, Republican, racist, anti-choice, homophobic California. This is no easy feat and even the notion of providing condoms, much less unbiased, comprehensive sex education to the youth in this community has been met with opposition! In a recent proposal made to the tribal service providers I asked about the population of LGBT youth in the community and they acted as though I asked how many of them had two heads! I was asked not to mention same-sex relationships in my presentation as though discussing it would only encourage them. My discussions do not include the use of the terms ‘boyfriend or girlfriend’ and I told them that I would present a biased viewpoint. I stressed that youth who feel oppressed due their sexual orientation and identity are more likely to be self destructive, the biggest concern they have for the tribal youth. The response was that they will discuss it and get back to me. I know two of the women on the panel personally and they have been a couple since highschool! I also know (thanks to my searches through Adult Friend Finder) that the neighboring small town has more swingers parties than the big city in Canada that I just returned from! The denial and shame associated with sex in general, and homosexuality specifically, in this valley is appalling, and sadly not isolated to only my small town America. The Texas decision is fantastic news and if those rednecks will finally allow their fellow citizens the right to get off in what ever way tickles their fancy, then there just may be hope for the rest of us. I love Dan Savage’s opinions and it is through folks like him, and you, and hopefully me, that we will make a difference one red-neck, broke-back cowboy at a time!
CL
on Saturday, 23 February 2008 at 11:23 am Carrie Lynne wrote:
ooops! Re-reading my entry I made a huge typo! Please allow to me correct it… “My discussions do not include the use of the terms ‘boyfriend or girlfriend’ and I told them that I would (definitely should have stressed that I will NOT) present a biased viewpoint. Thanks!!!
on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 at 5:49 am C. L. Hanson wrote:
I agree that privacy for some is privacy for all. As I said in my second gay discrimination post (why? why? why? II), for every sexual expression that one person finds arousing, I can guarantee you 100% that there exists another human that finds the same exact scene repulsive and disgusting. So let’s agree to stay out of the bedrooms of other consenting adults if we’re not invited and don’t like what we see there.
I also agree that this ought to extend to protections for sex workers. I just wrote a general article about prejudice against female sexual expression, and naturally sex work came up in the comments — these things are all related.