Whether or not you are a fan of Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly, I encourage you to log onto http://www.billoreilly.com and answer the current poll question: "Does the US Government have the right to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults?" This appears on the lower-right part of the page.  

Most of O'Reilly's audience is very conservative as he is.  He is totally against the idea of sexwork as degrading but he has said people should have the right to what they please in private.

With that bias to the poll of mostly conservative listeners, with over 17000 having taken the poll I am thrilled to see 69% is saying "NO", (the US government does NOT have the right to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults.

I bet religious right groups or sending notes to folks to vote Yes.  

I encourage sex positive folks to make your vote count and vote No.

I suspect the vote will be reported on "The Factor" which has by far the highest audiance of similar talk news shows in the U.S., and it may be a prelude to a show on the pros and cons for the laws against sexwork.

Some members don't read the national board.  This is a rare opportunity.

As of 9:10 pm EDT, the poll results are 71% NO, and 29% YES.  Looks as though the so-called moralists are striking out.

I would assert that the conservative viewers don't want the government in their bedrooms either.  I'm sure the supreme court will shoot this one down as it should.

HPG

I would guess you're probably right about the court, however, they could also adopt the position that this is a "states Right" issue and decline to rule.

Tenth ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

They *might* argue that the fourth ammendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" qualifies as the right to privacy, but there is no explicit, expressed right to privacy listed in the Constitution.

In the case they're considering, the court might conclude that the law itself is not unconstitituional, however, if the arrest was not made in accordance with the fourth ammendment then the arrest was illegal. If, on the other hand, the police had legal reason to be in the position to catch the two people, they could hold that the arrest was legal.

I dunno.

They do similar polls in Canada, and they all show consistently that people just don't think it's wrong to pay for sexual services, it's always an overwhelming majority.  Makes you wonder who the lawmakers are listening to!

-Anya

Though I suspect that the poll is meant to ask if we think that the government SHOULD have the right to...?  In reality, asks DOES the gov't. have the right to...?  

The question is essentially polling the public's knowledge of the existing law in their jurisdiction and not what they think the law ought to be.  I answered the poll "no", but those folks in Texas, as I understand, should answer "yes" because they have their local government between the sheets with them when the lights go out. (it's 10:00PM, do you know where your representative is?)

I agree that the intention is to ask about what state law OUGHT to be, not what it is.  But I do not find the wording of the question misleading on that score.  "Right" may refer to either legal right or moral right, and saying that the state SHOULD NOT have the legal right to regulate something is substantially the same as saying that they DO NOT have the moral right to regulate it.

That's exactly where I stand.  I am fairly conservative, but believe what happens between two consenting and mentally fit adults is no one else's business.

It seems to me that those who consider themselves conservative want less governmental involvement in our lives and would of course vote no on O'Reilly's poll, as I have.

These are only 2 examples, but many powerful conservative figures would love to leglislate morality....

Scary thought to ponder, but I've wondered who Bush might appoint to the high court if an opening becomes available....

feel comfortable legislating morality.  Why don't the conservatives on this board start talking some sense into their brethren?

-- Modified on 4/25/2003 7:23:47 PM

How about giving us a list of those "legislated morality" issues you speak of!  I think you are a victim us repeating bogus bullshit rather than thinking or researching for yourself.

Or maybe you can supply us with a list of legislation presented to legalize prostitution authored by Boxer, Feinstein or any other democratic Senator or Congressman?

What Senator Santorum said is quoted below in the AP story.  I think what he said makes perfect sense in reponse to the contents of the Lawrence v. Texas case before the Supreme Court.

"His remarks came during an interview with Associated Press relating to the topic of a current Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which deals with the state's anti-sodomy law. What Santorum said was: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Would you then have the right to kill someone in your own home if they consented?