NOTE: The
following letter has been edited to reflect current terminology used by
the Society for Sacred Sexuality. Specifically, the general term 'sacred
sex' replaces a particular sacred sex teaching named in the original. These
edits are indicated by [brackets].
Letter to the
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Washington, D.C. branch office
TO: [name withheld for privacy]
Staff Attorney, ACLU
1400 20th St., NW, Ste. 119
Washington, D.C. 20036-5920
FROM: GARY JOSEPH
Society for Sacred Sexuality
[address withheld for privacy]
July 12, 2004
Dear [name withheld for privacy]:
I received your response to my
request for ACLU assistance in establishing a legal status for certified
[sacred sex] teachers. First, let me say that I appreciate your efforts to
understand what is no doubt a new subject for you. Your intent was clear
in your letter, and I appreciate that.
I wish to clarify some of the
issues you raised and point out relevance to your identified ACLU goals in
asking you to reconsider your response. I also have questions on some
points that may assist me in exploring other legal options.
You rightly stated my intent to change
"statutes regulating sexual conduct to distinguish teaching and
practicing [sacred sex]...from unlawful commercial exchanges of sex for
money." This summarizes my position in full. However, you indicated my
further intent to establish a "novel right to financial remuneration." On
this point I think you misunderstand.
I do not seek a right to guaranteed income;
the natural economy provides income based on market
interest in my services. What I seek is change in the statutes that
(unfairly, I believe) prevent me from lawfully practicing my profession,
and thus earning a natural income.
Perhaps an analogy to your own profession will clarify my situation to you.
If practicing law for financial gain were outlawed due to pervasive deleterious actions by
lawyers at public expense, yet you as a legal professional practiced in a
way that was: 1) demonstrably distinct from the pervasive trend, and 2)
measurably beneficial to clients (and for which they would happily pay a
fair market price), would you not seek a distinction in the law for your
method of practice; and do you not see the restrictive law, that evidence
would show should not apply to you, as an infringement on your right to
free professional expression, and to earn income therefrom?
Whether in my case this falls in the category of religious rights,
since [sacred sex] is a spiritual discipline, or simply freedom of expression,
is not my particular concern, as both fall under the Bill of Rights,
that you indicated is the main sphere of ACLU interest.
I will happily drop the religious claim if that
is irrelevant to or confuses the issue.
I appreciate that the ACLU is non-profit, that cases are taken by volunteer attorneys,
and therefore that few are accepted. Consequently you stated, "we concentrate on test
cases that raise an unusual or unsettled question of civil liberties,
where our participation can help a large group of people..." I believe
mine is just such a case. Certainly it is unusual and unsettled, as it has
never been considered. Second, and this is my most significant point of
interest in this entire dispute, I believe that establishing this
principle of law WILL benefit a large group of people in a profound way.
It is a natural fact that sexuality is relevant to all people.
It is also commonly observed that there is a spiritual void in society today.
The potential for a sexually-oriented spiritual discipline to fill that void is enormous,
with power to benefit millions of people. (Here I re-emphasize my point from my
first letter that [sacred sex] is not mere common sex with the word
'spiritual' tacked in front. It is distinct both in method and beneficial
effect, yielding a genuine positive experience distinct from common sex.
Please re-read that letter for reference, if needed.)
That few would be immediately directly impacted is perhaps exactly the point:
if the Wright brothers were grounded because flying was outlawed after
so many attempts ended in disaster, where would transportation be today?
And had it happened, likely few would have noticed since it impacted almost no one at the time.
But every generation after would suffer the impact of one less efficient travel option.
Should the Wright brothers have been blocked because others before them
didn't know how to fly? Should [sacred sex] be illegal for the same reason -
that society is essentially uneducated about sex?
Why should I be penalized for the ill-effects of something I don't even practice?
It is the most revolutionary ideas, however little understood in their time,
that have the greatest power to effect change. [sacred sex] has potential to replace prostitution
(which continues illegally despite prohibitive laws, I might add) with something of social benefit.
American freedoms are there, among other things, to promote opportunity.
And while the opportunity of an acorn to grow into a mighty oak may not be obvious in its seed state,
that opportunity must be protected. America's greatness is built on realized opportunities,
especially in unexplored fields. To stifle them
(by failing to defend citizen rights to them) is to stunt America's
greatness. It is for the American public to decide in the marketplace
whether there is value in air transportation, the shade of an oak, or
[sacred sex], not for the law to prevent them from going to market. This
was my point in my first letter that you indicated you didn't grasp.
In your letter you also point out as pertinent the Supreme Court decision
on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 'laws of general effect'.
As I hopefully clearly argue in my two letters, I do not seek religious exemption
from laws of general effect. In no way do I wish to circumvent laws against common sex
for hire simply by calling it '[sacred sex]'. Rather, I assert that the laws of
general effect, in this case prostitution laws, do not justly apply to
this specific activity: a practice distinct from common sex for hire, both
in method and effect. That the practice is to some, spiritual, is
incidental. Those are not my grounds for challenge; therefore this
precedent does not apply.
Once again, I seek a distinction in the law between two distinct practices,
that one not be lumped under legislation of the other.
For these reasons then, I urge the ACLU to reconsider its position, and accept this case.
You state that you take cases where
"clear facts suggest existing law is not sufficiently protective of fundamental rights..."
I believe my arguments establish that, but if in your mind not,
please indicate on what point(s) and I will further clarify.
You continue that, "...you didn't identify a particular case or controversy that
brings you before a court and on which you need representation." On this point I am unclear.
Must statutory action be taken against me before I can challenge it, or
may I challenge on the presumptive grounds that it would be taken against
me were I to commit the relevant act? If it be the former, please inform
me, as I am willing to commit that act, if my case has merit - that is how
strongly I feel about this. If it be the latter, then again I request your
assistance in a presumptive challenge.
On the subject of legal options, you indicated potentially two others:
appealing to local Councils for change in the law,
and pursuing direct referendum to overturn the law.
I appreciate your suggestions and have considered them; however,
I believe they would be ineffective for this reason:
My experience has shown and I
cannot expect that the Councils, having no understanding or experience
with [sacred sex], will readily distinguish it from common sex. They will
simply vote not to consider it, and the matter will be over. The same
reasoning applies to an uninformed public, leery of what they would quickly,
and wrongly, dismiss as prostitution. The facts will never be heard.
In pursuing a legal challenge, the court must consider the evidence,
which I am confident will prove my case to its satisfaction.
You also mentioned Congressional legislation or other federal policy.
To my understanding, there is no federal law regarding this matter;
it is legislated independently by the states. If however, I am wrong about this,
please inform me and I will seek the services of your national board.
I hope my position is clear and with legal merit, and that in light of these clarifications
you will decide to assist me in this case.
Respectfully,
[signed]
Gary Joseph
P.S. Please note my new address above, at the organization I have founded to promote this reform.
[The ACLU did not change its position
as a result of this letter.]
Read the
Initial SSS Inquiry Letter to the ACLU
Press Release
announcing the legal action
Interview w/SSS founder
explaining the issue
Discuss legal sacred sex instruction
in our Forum
Comment on this letter
|
|
|
