Nathan writes:
> And a conservative would rightly respond, why is this a more fundamental
>right than my right to run my business as I choose, as long as everyone I
>associate with consents to the arrangements?
-I think Doug effectively answered this point. Running a business is clearly -a subsidiary right to sexual self-determination since running a business -involves so many other persons and considerations.
Sexuality involves multiple people most of the time-- in fact, the conservative argument on gay marriage is that it has pervasive effects, which is why they think they should be able to stop it.
So why is the conservative desire to regulate gay relationships, involving multiple people plus its effect on society, less a fundamental issue than economic relationships.
I happen to believe both are fundamental-- I just believe that gay marriage should be allowed as fundamentally contributing to the betterment of human happiness, just as regulation of the workplace should be supported for the same reason. In neither case do I think allowing courts, rather than the broader democratic process, would be better at ultimately finding the right answer.
> The question is not whether laws banning sex toys are stupid -- we agree
>that they are-- it's whether it's a good idea to give courts greater and
>greater power to override democratic decisions, a power they have
>constistently abused over the decades.
-Democratic decisions need to be overriden when they are homophobic/sexphobic -and oppressive.
And yet, historically, they have usually been overridden when they were anti-racist or anti-sexist or anti-disabled persons. I refer you to the Supreme Court decisions overturning affirmative action laws and the decision (Morrison) which struck down the national Violence Against Women Act and the decision eliminating the right of disabled people to sue for discrimination by state government employers (Garrett).
It was the political process that made discrimination against the disabled illegal, not the courts. It was the political process, not the courts, that made discrimination against women who were pregnant illegal. It was the political process, not the courts, that have passed laws in a number of states making discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.
> I still think the law's dumb, but if Alabamans don't like seeing sexually
>explicit dildo advertisements in their local newspapers, I think it's just
>incredibly stupid left tactics to make a stand on that issue or encourage
>courts to override popular laws in that area.
-No, it is not stupid. People have to realize that there is no right not to -be offended. Part of the leftist agenda should be (in my opinion) making -the public sphere safe for sexual speech, both commercial and non-commecial.
Ah, the "right" to commercial speech. More constitutional rights for corporations, the same right they use to justify unlimited political spending and the right not to be regulated in many ways. Yeah, corporate power in the name of sexual liberation.
-- Nathan Newman