<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; ZZ: Lawrence v Texas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/zz-lawrence-v-texas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Why the 5th Circuit is Correct About Lawrence</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43-2_Iguchi.pdf"><em>Satisfying Lawrence: The Fifth Circuit Strikes Ban on Sex Toy Sales</em></a>
Jamie Iguchi, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 655 (2009)

"At its core, the disagreement between the circuits turns on the scope of the right announced in Lawrence and the standard of review it requires."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: The Constitutional Status of Moral Legislation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>The Constitutional Status of Moral Legislation</em>
John Lawrence Hill, 98 Ky. L.J. 1 (2010)

"This Article argues that, in seeking to protect the private activities of gays and lesbians, liberals from Hart on have thought it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater by maintaining that the state may never regulate on the basis of 'private morals.' The better conclusion is that society has now reached a general consensus that it is wrong to single out one type of sexual activity and mark for punishment the class of people who engage in it. This, indeed, is the meaning of <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>, and not the more expansive claim that Lawrence declares the end of morals legislation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Seeing It, Knowing It (Obscenity)</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Miller Test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/main/2009/12/seeing-it-knowing-it.html">Seeing It, Knowing It</a></em>
Elizabeth M. Glazer, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 217 (2009)

"However, the 'more modest claim' that McDonald purports to make is, in fact, the claim made in my essay, namely, to 'refin[e]—but not overturn—the obscenity test set forth in <em>Miller</em>' so that it distinguishes between sex and sexual orientation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Should Texas&#8217;s Former Ban on Obscene Device Promotion Pass Constitutional Muster Under a Murky Lawrence?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laura M. Clark, 41 St. Mary's L.J. 177 (2009)

"Part IV will analyze relevant U.S. Supreme Court holdings and Texas cases, apply Lawrence to the Texas and Alabama statutes, and examine whether the Texas statute might be changed to pass constitutional muster."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Rabbit&#8221; Hunting in the Supreme Court: The Constitutionality of State Prohibitions of Sex Toy Sales Following Lawrence v. Texas</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:13:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["This Note . . . supports the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of Lawrence in Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama as a means of limiting the Lawrence decision and preserving traditional state authority to democratically police the borders of accepted sexual behavior in preservation of public morality."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courts divide over constitutionality of sex toy bans</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/httpwrit-lp-findlaw-comgrossman20091110-html/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/httpwrit-lp-findlaw-comgrossman20091110-html/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:55:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: 1568 Montgomery Highway Inc v City of Hoover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/grossman/20091110.html">FindLaw</a>: "The Supreme Court of Alabama recently upheld a state obscenity law banning the sale or promotion of sex toys. In so holding, the Court agreed with one of the two federal appellate courts to consider the same question in recent cases"]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/httpwrit-lp-findlaw-comgrossman20091110-html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Alabama’s criminalization of sex toys reach the Supreme Court?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: 1568 Montgomery Highway Inc v City of Hoover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/20090915.pdf"><em>1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover</em></a>, No. 1070531 (Ala. Sept. 11, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

