In another blow to common decency and protecting innocence, the justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled earlier this month in favor of a woman being topless in a public space.
Even though the state has laws against exhibitionism, the justices reasoned in their opinion that the woman, a stripper named Eloisa Plancarte, did not necessarily meet the standard for lewdness mentioned in the law.
Yes, she had cocaine in her possession, and yes, she joked that “Catholic girls do it all the time” when police questioned her, and yes, she happens to be a stripper by trade, and yes, this was the third time someone reported her for indecent exposure, but none of this proves that she was showing off her breasts with a sexual intent. Nor do her breasts necessarily qualify as private parts: “the evidence presented in the stipulated-evidence trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plancarte engaged in conduct of a sexual nature.”
Perhaps Plancarte was simply overheated — Minnesota is famous for its scorching spring temperatures. Or maybe she was just making herself comfortable and happened to find herself at the gas station parking lot. Or maybe she didn’t understand that there were laws against woman bearing their breasts in public. Her lawyers claim she wasn’t being lewd, so who are we to judge her otherwise?
The two justices (appointees of Democratic Gov. and Kamala Harris’s running mate Tim Walz) writing the opinion apparently believed that simply padding their 31-page opinion with endless equivocations, non-sequiturs, and circular arguments would justify their effective legalization of stripping naked in public. And while this may seem like a small matter that might only upset a few conservative prudes, this ruling threatens to have serious ramifications for the American constitutional order as well as the culture at large.
The first immediate ramification is the obvious judicial overreach. The Minnesota legislature explicitly prohibited all instances of showing one’s body for sexual or lewd purposes. Yet the justices declared this law doesn’t apply because categorizing any action specifically “lewd” or “sexual” is subjective.
By this logic, any law could be overturned by the court since any word could be deemed subjective. A murderer could claim he stabbed another person in self-defense even if there is no indication he was defending himself. A thief could claim he took merchandise from a store, not knowing he had to pay for it.
Any crime can be excused on the basis that the intent was somehow different from what is expressed in any given law. All it takes is a few activist judges to set the precedent, and potential offenders can question any law and play dumb when the wording clearly implicates them.
In the long term, this ruling damages the culture. As Julie Quist of the Child Protection League recently lamented in a statement on this case, “allowing women to bare breasts on the beaches, on the streets, and at grocery stores erodes children’s natural sense of modesty that serves as a safe sexual boundary.” That is, without the boundaries established by properly covering oneself, individuals instantly become objects of sexual exploitation and violation. It is the very opposite of empowering or liberating; it is debasing and enslaving.
Families have a right to be spared from this nastiness. It is immoral, tempting adults into deviant behavior and normalizing objectification and sexual commodification for children who don’t know better. Children who grow up in a world where they see so many Eloisa Plancartes stripping for the pleasure of others will likely see this as an acceptable way to conduct oneself, find validation, and even make some money. The sacredness of sex and the body along with a healthy respect for the opposite sex and the implicit boundaries of a consensual relationships will all dissolve into nothing.
And that’s what lies at the heart of this decision. It’s not to protect families and children, but those in the LGBT and “sex worker” communities. When society is sufficiently sexualized, they can expect to welcome more members into their camp. People’s bodies and sex drives now define them rather than their virtues, ideas, or contributions to the world.
Meanwhile, the sane people who reject this kind of cheap nihilism are forced to endure public debauchery and ridicule for daring to criticize it. In practical terms, they now have one less state where they can live their lives in peace and safely raise their children, helping them understand and embrace their humanity.
As for the Minnesotans who stay, they will have to witness the ongoing diminishment of family and community life and the rise in degeneracy and criminality. Their Supreme Court had a choice to endorse civic morality or defend a drug-abusing stripper, and they shamelessly sided with the latter.
