Sex: The Revolution…

is the name of the documentary series VH1 has starting last night (sorry, I’m a day late) for four nights. It’s a jolting look at life changing history in the sexual revolution. Here are some interesting dates:

1953: Playboy makes its debut

1960: The FDA approves the birth control pill

1965: Griswold v. Connecticut legalizes contraception for married couples

1967: Loving v. Virginia makes interracial marriage legal in all states

1972: The first issue of MS. Magazine hits the stand

1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird legalizes contraception for unmarried people

1973: Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal in the U.S.

1987: The AIDS Quilt goes on display at Washington D.C

They state it’s a kind of TV event that makes education and ENLIGHTENMENT painless and highly entertaining (which is what the DD is all about)! I have to admit, I never knew at one time contraception wasn’t legal for married people?



6 Responses

  1. Contraception was illegal for married couples and that court case legalized it for them only, it was still illegal for single women yet the law also criminalized women who became pregnant out of wedlock, talk about a double standard!

  2. After reading this posting, I wanted to read a bit more about the Loving v. Virginia case because to me it sounds like the key to overturning discriminatory gay marriage laws using precedent set by this case. It seems that in good time this case may be the one to give equal rights to all. Virginia commented on the anniversary of the court case:

    “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry.

    I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

    I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

  3. The reason why loving v Virginia cannot be used for gay marriage is because it was fought using the arguments of due process and equal protections under the 14th Amendment and the 14th does not cover sexual orientation.

  4. The 14th amendment does not actually specify what it can and cant be used for or against. The Equal Protection Clause of this amendment or left open and have been used in civil rights fights for races

    It states:
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The language is flexible enough that one can argue that the 14th amendment does in fact nullify anti-gay marriage laws because these laws could be construed as depriving a group of people in committed relationships equal protection under the law.

    The marital communications privelege is one protection marriage law provides (though many states include this civil union protections). This privelege allows communications between a married couple to be kept confidential by both members. Therefore, my communication with my partner does not necessarily receive the same protection as my heterosexual and married counterparts.

    The idea that civil unions or domestic partnership laws may include this right does not nullify the idea that 14th amendment applies. It only brings further argument that separate, but equal is never equal. Brown v Board successfully removed separate, but equal as a solution to segregation. A main argument of this case was the 14th amendment.

    Therefore, I still believe the 14th amendment to be applicable.

  5. One thing that is ironic about the 14th Amendment is that equal protections do include all marginalized groups but not equally. When a 14th Amendment case comes to the Supreme Court (either a state a or national court) they use a scrutiny test and it is actually quite interesting how these tests work. The three levels from most strict to most lenient are Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis Scrutiny. The court looks at different groups legal claims with different levels of scrutiny and they always use that same level (they can choose to use any level they want but they just always use the same one). Now how the levels are used by the US Supreme Court is as follows:

    Strict Scrutiny: Suspect classes (race or national origin), and religion (for federal laws)
    Intermediate Scrutiny: Gender, Sexual Orientation and Religion (for states laws)
    Rational Basis Scrutiny: Everyone Else

    Now the point on a scrutiny test is to look into why a law was passed and judge whether the reason is good enough to deny someone his/her rights. The best example of this I can find is Oregon v Smith. Basically, Oregon passed a law that banned smoking peyote and some native Americans lost their job because they smoked peyote as a religious exercise. The Supreme Court found in favor of Oregon 5 to 4 by using Intermediate Scrutiny, the decision written by my favorite justice, Justice Scalia (sarcasm), said Oregon’s limitation of a religious exercise was justified because peyote is dangerous and no one should smoke and the law applied equally to everyone. Now, because Scalia used Intermediate Scrutiny, every religious case since has been given the same level of scrutiny. The dissent favored Smith and used Strict Scrutiny saying an exception could have easily been given for peyote use in religious practices, but since it was a minority it does not really matter.

    Now, to get back to the crux the matter, sexual orientation is given intermediate scrutiny and were specifically denied suspect class which means in the foreseeable future it will never be given Strict Scrutiny. This means, even if the state has a somewhat legitimate purpose for making gay marriage illegal it will pass Intermediate Scrutiny.

    But for one last glimmer of hope, because I do support gay marriage (believe it or not), when the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard Goodridge v Department of Health they used rational basis scrutiny and of course legalized gay marriage. The purpose of doing so was they were saying “look, this law banning gay marriage is so discriminatory that it cant even pass the lowest test!” Thus, their clever use of scrutiny cemented gay marriage forever in at least one state.

    The chances of that happening in the US though are very slim thus, for now, the only way for gay marriage to win is through law not the courts especially with Roberts leading the way for the next 40 years who will never grant sexual orientation as a suspect class.

  6. tel:95849301231123

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: