What real lawyers said about prostitution and Lawrence vs Texas

When Phoenix was the first city in the U.S. to make swing clubs illegal happened to be shortly after the Lawrence case I was on a committee fighting the changes headed by Nancy and Milo of Club Chameleon. I was at  National Coalition for Sexual Freedom incident response team Phoenix meetings. We have formed the AZ Sexual Expression Freedom Coalition (SEFC) with participation from a wide range of sex positive people with diverse ways of sexual expression  We had lots of ideas including a Political Action Committee to raise money for lobbyists etc.  But there was not enough financial support or those willing to be public in the fight and we lost the battle, which was very similar to the current sexwork issues.

On  2/28 - 2/29/2004 I met in Chicago at a swing club owners legal conference with some of the top First Amendment Attorneys in the U.S. It was an outstanding conference Co-Sponsored by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

Speakers included:
Reed Lee, with Chicago law firm of J.D. Obenberger and Associates http://www.xxx.law.net  
First Amendment Attorney Jim Turner advisor to Woodhull Freedom Foundation and partner in the 30-year-old law Washington DC law firm of Swankin and Turner

While the main issue was swinging related, I guided the discussion to the sexwork area both in public and in private with the attorneys. While all agreed it would take a long time, there was agreement that the basis of Lawrence vs Texas should apply to in private consenting adult prostitution.

Reed Lee cautions that expanding Lawrence vs. Texas will be a slow process (the Supreme Court ruled against a similar case a few years ago), he predicts that within our lifetime..... ready for this... private prostitution laws also be declared unconstitutional on the same basis!

The next day, Jim Turner agreed with the previous days brief discussion of Lawrence by Reed Lee, First Amendment Attorney.

Newsweek Magazine called the Lawrence case one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in the last 100 years.

More of Jim's comments
Confirming prior attorney's comments, culture has moved forward on this issue and we now have to progress even further. Up until Lawrence we didn't have nearly as strong law on our side. As the saying goes if you have the law on your side go with the law. If not you need political action to change the law. Today we are seeing a shift in the law to the side of individual rights of sexual expression and laws can not be based on "morality".

But as we move toward more individual freedoms as a culture there is a huge backlash against it. President Bush is desperately fighting every way he can against this cultural move to more individual rights. On the gay marriage issue, he knows he can't stop the progress other than by a constitutional amendment which in Jim's view will never get passed.

Jim asked the other First Amendment attorney Reed Lee if he agreed or had any comments. Reed said he basically agreed with all of Jim's comments and went on to point out the huge difference in the prior Supreme Court decision in Hardwick vs Bowers from 17 years ago. The Bowers case that upheld the Sodomy law looked to traditions and history of the people and the Court found no general public acceptance of gay sodomy 17 years ago. But the Lawrence case completely reversed what the important question should be. Not history but the question should be regarding individual rights of sexual expression not traditions and history but what the current culture does. The Court in its decision made a commitment to protecting individual sexual expression which is a totally new application of a constitution principal.

Scalia is afraid all hell would break lose in his dissent in Lawrence will all sorts of terrible sexual activities being allowed.(including prostitution) But this was exactly the same argument made to keep slavery the law as well as not to grant interracial marriage. But the nation survived!

Another Attorney (Doug in Florida) responds from reading my initial report
Lawrence will not sweep the cultural landscape overnight. It took the Supreme Court thirty years to figure out that if your body was private enough for abortion, it was private enough for homosexual conduct. It will take them a good long while to recognize that purely private sex with others, and private commercial sex -- commercial swing clubs, prostitution -- and other intimate personal interaction such as BDSM, deserve constitutional protection, too.

Still, the struggle to protect our lifestyle(s) needs to go forward, otherwise we risk endless persecution. All of us can help. Engage in responsible, ethical behavior, guided by leaders of any group you are affiliated with. Encourage your group leaders to stay legally current, and to have dialogue with local authorities when appropriate. Join national advocacy groups such as National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. When in dialogue with antagonists, insist on tolerance and argue for acceptance. And always, be proud. Our values may not be the family values of the far right, but they are OUR values, which round out our lives and give us joy and enrichment in interaction with our friends.