May 24 2007
Texas Senate passes the dumbest law in years
[From News 8 Austin]
Patrons of sexually oriented businesses in Texas would be charged a $5 admission fee imposed by the state under legislation the Senate approved early Wednesday. The money would go to sexual assault prevention and services, sexual assault research and indigent health care, said Sen. Royce West, a Dallas Democrat. Senators approved the measure 28-1 in the early morning hours as legislative bill passage deadlines approached.
Read about it here.
[From me]
Sometimes I wish I still had the Pharisee of the week award. This is why I hate politics. How in the world does charging the people who are more likely to sexually assault women money going to help them? The best way to stop assault and exploitation of women is to close those horrible places down!
What do you think?
19 responses so far
I agree. Shut them down.
The Texans apparently justify this as a “sin tax.” I don’t agree with it but Ok. So charge the patrons of these businesses an appropriate impact fee. Some researcher has to have information as to the cost of the live sex shows, in correlation to the increase in criminal behavior and other impacts to a community in terms of dollars. They do it for gambling whenever the gambling industry tries to move into a communiy.
I’m reminded of what I read someplace about committees; maybe it applies to legislatures, too:
“None of us is as dumb as all of us.”
Can I get an AAAAmen?
You know what a camel is, don’t you? A horse designed by a committee! And since legislatures function through committes. . . .
My guess is that even if the state of Texas shut every one of these things down, there would be no measurable impact on the assault and abuse of women.
Agreed, it’s a dumb tax.
Part of the problem is that Texas has a hard time raising money due to their tax structure, so it’s not hard to sell a sin tax.
As for the objectification and exploitation of women, it’s hard to figure out where to draw lines. Or where to point to the cause. I would suspect that FAR more incidents of violence against women are linked to the consumption of beverage alchohol than patrons of the types of bars the Texas senate is targeting. The clients I’ve had who were involved in violence against women were overwhelmingly problem drinkers and drug users. The only client I heard of at this type of bar was charged after fighting one of the bouncers in a dispute over his bar tab.
The women who work in these places often have the most protection. I’d agree that more violence happens in homes from drinking or just wanting to overpower. We don’t close down churches where there are many who bring about sexual assault.
I’ve oddily made a friend with a woman that works at one of these places on the way to Galveston. Her complaint about it is that the $5 will no longer go directly her and her co-workers. The patrons will just not give them that extra $5 that now has to go to the government. According to her she isn’t a victim of sexual crimes, so this law is actually hurting her.
I learned a long time ago not to think of the Texas legislature in terms of logic and reason.
The good news is that the Texas legislature only meets every two years! That gives the good citizens a year of relief before the shenannigans start all over.
The scary part is that because of the “rose bush” rule every bill has to have a 2/3 majority to even be considered.
Onelittleman, IMHO the problem is not primarily the tax structure but the runaway spending, just like in Washington.
(Rose Bush” rule: at the beginning of the biannual session the first order of business that comes before the legislature is a motion to amend the rules to require a 2/3 majority to bring anything to a vote under the auspicies of deciding on landscaping around the Texas Capitol. Really. There is a motion voted on to make the outside adornment the top priority on the legislature’s calendar. Thus, in order to consider any other bill you have to have a “super Majority” to suspend the rules ie. put the bill in front of the Rose Bush bill. If 2/3 of the senators do not want to talk about or be required to vote on the bill they simply do not vote to allow it. This is my understanding. Someone correct me if I am wrong.)
I thought flying to another state a few years ago to get around rules was crazy… Fire the lot of them
Texas…it’s a whole nuther county
I don’t like the idea of any “sin tax.”
I hate the thought that one day, on the floor of the legislature, we might hear something like this:
“What? You want to ban what in this great state of ours?! You can’t do that! we get Hundreds of Thousands of dollars from that “*insert name of Sin here*” in Education/Abuse-Prevention/etc. tax! You can’t ban that!”
I liken a sin tax to the equivalence of relying on foriegn oil. Not a good idea, anyway you slice it.
Tim Dahl
Shutting down brothels is an exercise in futility- it only drives the women and their patrons onto the streets. Even Iran hasn’t managed to get rid of them!!!
The best method is to do what our government has done- which is to control them very tightly in matters of hygiene. Criminalising them only attracts the thugs of the underworld with their charming standover tactics, and bullying pimps who prey on vulnerable girls. Legalising the trade protects the workers fro assaults, guarantees their wages, and looks after their health.
The fact is, men have urges which seek expression and if a fellow has no spouse, it’s unreasonable to expect him to live his life like a hermit. I know that St Paul thought that even married men should live without sex
( which shows how screwed up he was) but we’re not all St Paul, are we?
Better to be realistic about the nature of human beings than to clamp down on them, which only makes them all the more determined. You cannot cage up a wild beast forever- it will only roar all the louder.
And, BTW, wasn’t one of Jesus’s ancestors a prostitute?
Francoise, you’re making a solid argument.
Well played on Rahab.
Thanks, onelittleman -I speak from experience, and am a hard-boiled realist!
Janna’s right- violence towards women is usually in the home.
Brothels serve another interesting purpose- they act as a conduit for violence which would otherwise be totally unacceptable. Patrons with sadistic urges, willing to pay the hefty fees, can discharge those anti-social urges on to the men or women they hire for that purpose. There is HUGE money to be made in that field of sexuality! Perhaps we should be THANKFUL that some businesses are willing to cater to these needs, and hence protect others?
Tim, we have to have sin taxes, because the Texas constitution forbids a state income tax. Government can only tax what people buy, what people own, and/or what people make, and when you eliminate one of those three tax bases from consideration, you have to get creative. This works especially badly in a state of 20 million people that, until recently, had a property tax cap. We have a revenue problem.
Francoise, You have the thing about what Paul said all wrong. He said that it was alright for a couple to go without sex for a time if it was for the purpose of seeking God’s will or guidance. He never said for married men to go without sex forever. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Franciose, I agree with your conclusion, but I dunno if the “channeled violence” argument holds water. I think there is a fundamental difference between someone who’s thing in bed is tying up and spanking other people and someone who feels compelled to commit violence. I don’t think someone in the latter category becomes satiated, but rather I think the pattern is one of escalation.
I’d love to shut them down, but it won’t change hearts to do that. Sexual exploitation will still occur. We followers of Jesus need to be doing what He called us to do… bringing in the Kingdom of God, praying for it to come, and being salt and light to the world. Making disciples. Seeing God use His sons and daughters to bring others into the Kingdom.
Scarheel, Paul said “From now on, men who have wives are to live as though they have none.” He believed that the end of the world was imminent. He was wrong.
Geekwad, without those brothels catering to such clients, what would those clients be doing to unwilling partners? I’m not referring to the normal bondage babies- I’m talking about downright sadists. I’ve known such people, and I can guarantee that they’d most likely be committing violence unlawfully, if they had no other recourse.
Violence doesn’t always necessarily escalate.
My point is that it’s better for it to be under control, with legal outlets, than bottled up ready to explode.
I stand corrected about that verse, but think you misunderstand the context of the passage as a whole. You cannot support what you say about verse 29 when you look at in context with verses 1-7. Also, his speaking of the time being short and the world in its present form passing away are not necessarily references to the end of the world. The world was changing and Christians we coming under more and more persecution.