Reading the text of the decision clarified some of the commentary I watched yesterday on PBS' excellent (MacNeil)/Lerher Report.
The majority decision seemed to imply not only a presumed Right to Privacy (derived from a Right to Liberty), but also to say consensual adult behaviour conducted in private for non-commercial purposes is none of the State's business.
Call it the " Separation of Bedroom and State ". Progressive.
It further seemed to conclude that "moral disapproval" was, in and of itself, inadequate justification for laws limiting Liberty and punishing a class of people, irregardless of the size or constituency of majority or minorities involved.
Just because group A doesn't like dancing shouldn't mean they can make dancing criminal (targeting a class of "dancers" for special punishment based on conduct between consenting adults where no harm occurs), no matter if 99% stand on one side and only 1% jive. Attempts to limit free expression of another person's liberty because you don't like the behaviour are now subject to appeal as unconstitutional.
Call it the " Separation of Dogma and Reality ". Progressive
It seems logical, from Justice Kennedy's opinion, that numerous challenges may be forthcoming to Same-sex marriage, Gays in the Military, and other areas of perceived discriminatory status based on sexual orientation formerly justified by legislatures under the guise of "moral disapproval". Similar challenges may arise with regard to consensual Euthanasia (opposed on predominantly moral grounds), and numerous other medical fronts, including breast-feeding (although "private" and "discreetly public" may shape that issue), and perhaps medical marijuana (most of the War on Drugs is morals-driven).
Equality is good. Liberty is good. Privacy is good. Free will is good.
If you don't like someone else's consensual choices, mind your own business and stop moralizing.
Welcome to the enlightened 21st Century, America.
We Canadians (and many Europeans) are glad you joined us.
I heard today a good analysis. The Santorum argument is basically a slippery slope argument - that now maybe no private moral behavior can be illegal. Sure, it's possible.
But if it had been decided the other way, there would be a slippery slope in the other direction, where anything that one state considers immoral could be legislated. How could you prevent making masturbation illegal, or men wearing women's dresses, or interracial sex, etc.?
I heard today a good analysis. The Santorum argument is basically a slippery slope argument - that now maybe no private moral behavior can be illegal. Sure, it's possible.
But if it had been decided the other way, there would be a slippery slope in the other direction, where anything that one state considers immoral could be legislated. How could you prevent making masturbation illegal, or men wearing women's dresses, or interracial sex, etc.?
Santorum's argument isn't a slippery slope because it doesn't not assume an extreme from from a moderate position. The court has affirmed that the state has no position to enforce laws concerning actions the majority may be uncomfortable with unless they can prove there is a legitimate state interest. That interest use to be the promotion of marriage and also what the majority was comfortable with sexually. However it is obvious that the state no longer has a compelling reason to promote marriage. Likewise the court has stated that with regard to privacy rights that if the state cannot delineate a real reason, the rights go to the persons.
The only criteria that applies now is consent and the right to privacy. Many acts are permissable under those two criteria. Santorum applying this criteria is not a slippery slope because it is still just the same criteria. A slippery slope might be taking it from say sexual actions to say euthanasia which is not a sexual act. (At least not yet )
Take the two criteria, the act and see if it should be legal. It is simple enough to do. If it is a sexual act that can be done in private with consent and has no legitimate state reason for stopping it, it should be legal.
Sodomy = yes
Prostitution = yes
Adultery = yes
Incest = yes
Homosexual marriage = yes
The state has no compelling reason to stop marriage because sex no longer occurs within marriage nor do most legal agreements require marriage. Marriage is a legal agreement and in most ways mostly an anarchism now that the government has made it possible to get spousal and child support outside of marriage.
Likewise if you can enter into a marriage agreement with both sexes and also multiple times within your lifetime, though not at the same time, how can the state really say you shouldn't be allowed to practice bigamy? It is just a legal agreement that formalizes sexual relations. Why should the state be able to decree how many people you formalize it with at once since you could formalize it with multiple parters serially, why not at once?
Incest, the genetic part is mostly just hearsay with little to no scientific backing. There are a few recessive disorders that could be tested for, but even then. If the state cannot prevent the reproduction of a woman who has had multiple sucessive generations of mental disfunction from reproducing, why should it be able to keep related family members from marrying and reproducing. The development of the child before birth is not something the state can legislate or else abortion would be illegal. The child could be born deformed and then being a person, the state would assist it.
Prostitution is already regular heterosexual intercourse in most cases. The only reason the state regulates it is that by not allowing men to simply pay for periodic sex, they can trick them into supporting both women and their children via state sanctioned routes, aka marriage or child support.
Finally with regard to interracial sex, etc. Many of these items were illegal at one time. They were overturned by democratic means instead of inventing rights to unpopular laws.
If you did want to slippery slope it you could add the following.
The reason why the texas law was unconstitutional (or what have you) is that it only applied to one specific group, consenting same sex sodomists. Now if the law was generally applied, and generally enforced, then there would be no special group recieving undue punishment. The constitution does ensure equal protection under the law, and a law that targets one group and not all is unconstitutional. This was one of the justices arguments. When looking at it this way the Senators comments make little sense at all.
The reason why the texas law was unconstitutional (or what have you) is that it only applied to one specific group, consenting same sex sodomists. Now if the law was generally applied, and generally enforced, then there would be no special group recieving undue punishment. The constitution does ensure equal protection under the law, and a law that targets one group and not all is unconstitutional. This was one of the justices arguments. When looking at it this way the Senators comments make little sense at all.
Billybob,
I don't mean to be rude, but this law was not overturned on the equal protection clause. It was overturned on the right to privacy, hence the thread title.
Santorum's argument isn't a slippery slope because it doesn't not assume an extreme from from a moderate position.
Of course it's a slippery slope argument: now that we've let X happen, we can't stop Y and Z from happening. This is what you're saying in the rest of your post. You're saying that by protecting gay sex we've now opened the door to all these other bad things using the same logic. If you prefer some other phrase because you think homosexuality is as bad as it gets, OK, but that's really just word games.
Quote:
Sodomy = yes
Prostitution = yes
Adultery = yes
Incest = yes
Homosexual marriage = yes
Sodomy is what this case was about.
Prostitution: there certainly could be a state interest in keeping prostitution illegal.
Adultery: not illegal now in most places as far as I know.
Incest: Again, not illegal now as far as I know, unless a minor is involved of course in which case it fails your consent test.
Homosexual marriage: That's no longer private bedroom behavior. Marriage has many public and legal and tax implications etc.
Again, the point of my post was to have us consider the implications of having no constitutional protection for private behavior that the majority happens to consider immoral.
Quote:
Finally with regard to interracial sex, etc. Many of these items were illegal at one time. They were overturned by democratic means instead of inventing rights to unpopular laws.
That's not true - at least some of the South's laws against interracial marriage were overturned by the courts based on equal protection.
Of course it's a slippery slope argument: now that we've let X happen, we can't stop Y and Z from happening. This is what you're saying in the rest of your post. You're saying that by protecting gay sex we've now opened the door to all these other bad things using the same logic. If you prefer some other phrase because you think homosexuality is as bad as it gets, OK, but that's really just word games.
Sodomy is what this case was about.
Prostitution: there certainly could be a state interest in keeping prostitution illegal.
Adultery: not illegal now in most places as far as I know.
Incest: Again, not illegal now as far as I know, unless a minor is involved of course in which case it fails your consent test.
Homosexual marriage: That's no longer private bedroom behavior. Marriage has many public and legal and tax implications etc.
Again, the point of my post was to have us consider the implications of having no constitutional protection for private behavior that the majority happens to consider immoral.
That's not true - at least some of the South's laws against interracial marriage were overturned by the courts based on equal protection.
Again I disagree because there is no change in the criteria. Most slippery slope definitions would say that if you allow the first step, the others will follow because of vagueness of definition and incrementalism.
A slipperly-slope doesn't use the same logic. It uses incrementalism to move from a to z and thus don't you dare allow a. No one has argued that this decision will bring about any new criteria, rather that when the same criteria/legal reasoning is applied in other areas, they will be legal as well.
With the other acts I stated, there absolutely is NO change in the criteria to be considered. All are private acts that the state can demonstrate no compelling reason to legislate.
Would you consider it a slippery slope if I said that a case that allowed marriage between someone black and someone white would likely apply to hispanics, asians, indians, etc as well? Of course not because there is no change in reasoning. If I said that it would be the first in a series of steps to destroy marriage or allow non-adult or non-human marriages, that would be different.
Again the court could have found against the law using the equal protection clause, but instead they profoundly strengthened the right to privacy. The bar was set much higher as a result. It isn't merely enough for the state to have an interest for something to be illegal. Rather the state must prove that it's interest is so great that it should be allowed to override your right to privacy. They could not prove this interest with sodomy. It is my contention that they will be unable to prove overriding interest in many other areas as well. Again this is not a slipperyslope, it is just application of the courts ruling.
I will give you that based off what you said, the state might be able to show overriding interest with homosexual marriage, but the twin pronged attack of privacy along with equal protection, it will fall. I will admit though that it would require additional criteria apart from this one ruling and thus could be a bit of a slippery-slope.
With regard to adultery, I didn't mean to imply that it was something to be thrown in jail over, but rather it is a grounds for divorce filing in many states and can affect divorce matters though again this is less so with no fault divorce.
Incest, well this article pretty much sums up my feelings on it.slate commentary
Prostitution is where this could really have a big effect. The state must show a reason compelling enough to override the right to privacy. This is, outside of strict moral objection, very hard to do. Anyone who has argued for legalized prostitution has said, and rightly so, that if they took the same actions without the exchange of money, it wouldn't be illegal. The state must show that the privacy right must be overridden in order to... what, show that someone was given a $20-50 or whatever it costs? Good luck.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the definition of slippery slope, especially when we agree on what we're talking about: that if you do X, then Y and Z will follow. I think it's a type of slippery slope argument, but call it something else if you wish.
You're trying to argue that there is no difference between sodomy in the bedroom and these other things like prostitution and gay marriage under the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore they will become legal as well. I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
Exactly. I would add, also, that many of the things trumpetman mentioned have implied or explicit problems with the "consent" part of consenting adults, which keeps them from being purely private matters. Adultery involves breach-of-contract, again keeping it from being a purely private matter. And surely, trumpetman, you don't really think that inbreeding is bunk? Check out the rate of birth defects and inherited diseases in Saudi Arabia, where cousin marriages are often encouraged. It's elysium for a human geneticist. There's a clear public interest in preventing consanguinity.
"Let the democratic process do its thing" makes little sense. One of the fundamental roles of the Constituion (interpreted by the courts) is to prevent "tyranny of the majority". People have certain rights that cannot be subject to the whims of the electorate. Equal protection would have been such a cleaner way to decide this case, though - right-to-privacy really does open up a can of worms. In this age of "Total...err, Terrorist Information Awareness", though, a little renewed emphasis on privacy would be a good thing.
I don't mean to be rude, but this law was not overturned on the equal protection clause. It was overturned on the right to privacy, hence the thread title.
Nick
While I agree that the supremes majority majority descision was in reference to the right to privacy, O'Conner's argument for repealing the law followed the equal protection clause. Both are the judgements of the court. Often the minority majorities descisions are the ones looked at in future cases since they have no less merit. Her argument was the most convincing to me.
(on the issue of privacy, it isnt terribly clear this isnt what the writers of the bill of rights had in mind...)
Does anyone find it ironic that someone from Hong Kong has comments about privacy in the US? The Chinese government is rolling back freedom in Hong Kong but here he is worried about laws in the US that go mostly unenforced.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the definition of slippery slope, especially when we agree on what we're talking about: that if you do X, then Y and Z will follow. I think it's a type of slippery slope argument, but call it something else if you wish.
You're trying to argue that there is no difference between sodomy in the bedroom and these other things like prostitution and gay marriage under the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore they will become legal as well. I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
Prostitution and public solitation. What about calls to escort services from your bedroom?
Likewise with gay marriage I did concede that it would likely fall not only under this ruling but a ruling involving equal protection as well. (Come on BRussel, I said you were right.)
Exactly. I would add, also, that many of the things trumpetman mentioned have implied or explicit problems with the "consent" part of consenting adults, which keeps them from being purely private matters. Adultery involves breach-of-contract, again keeping it from being a purely private matter. And surely, trumpetman, you don't really think that inbreeding is bunk? Check out the rate of birth defects and inherited diseases in Saudi Arabia, where cousin marriages are often encouraged. It's elysium for a human geneticist. There's a clear public interest in preventing consanguinity.
"Let the democratic process do its thing" makes little sense. One of the fundamental roles of the Constituion (interpreted by the courts) is to prevent "tyranny of the majority". People have certain rights that cannot be subject to the whims of the electorate. Equal protection would have been such a cleaner way to decide this case, though - right-to-privacy really does open up a can of worms. In this age of "Total...err, Terrorist Information Awareness", though, a little renewed emphasis on privacy would be a good thing.
Adultery is a breech of contract in the regard that it could be used as grounds for divorce, yes. However since we have no-fault divorce now it seldom is a legal matter to be dealt with. In essence it is an anarchism on the law books, but then again so were most sodomy laws. Marriage and partner obligations have changed dramatically over the last few decades. Adultery was quite the issue when women couldn't be professionals. Sexuality is very different now and likewise a man or woman leaving one another does not doom a woman to poverty.
Letting the democratic process does make sense in lieu of creating imbalances within rights that literally make situations ungovernable. When you nationalize issues it can swing both ways. This is why people get their panties in such a bunch about Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal and becoming more legal in more states by the day when Roe was passed. If Roe is ever overturned by the fetus being given human status, it won't revert it to the states, it will criminalize abortion nationally.
Sodomy laws for the most part were gone. There were about, I could be recalling this wrong because I posted this list a while ago, 8-10 states that still had laws, and they were enforced pretty much never. Given a few years they likely would wise up as well. However now it is just one big national target. If you can find a reason, you only have to win in one place now to start restricting people's rights. As I mentioned as did you, equal protection would have been much cleaner. This really did open up a can of worms.
Lastly with inbreeding, I suppose if you have a country doing it successively for multiple generations you do see increases in recessive traits. I did mention that the state could require testing, but you also have to remember that sex no longer equals reproduction. That is why I complained about the bar being raised too high. Before the state could have an interest. Now that interest must be shown to be strong enough to outweigh the privacy right. If it is just the periodic family members, it is unlikely to do this.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
wouldn't it be more that the constitution ensures the right to live, which pro-lifers believe should be applied to unborn children as well?
no conflict there.
But one of the primary arguments against Roe is that it invented a constitutional right.
And are you certain the constitution ensures the right to life?
The majority decision seemed to imply not only a presumed Right to Privacy (derived from a Right to Liberty), but also to say consensual adult behaviour conducted in private for non-commercial purposes is none of the State's business.
Call it the " Separation of Bedroom and State ". Progressive.
It further seemed to conclude that "moral disapproval" was, in and of itself, inadequate justification for laws limiting Liberty and punishing a class of people, irregardless of the size or constituency of majority or minorities involved.
Just because group A doesn't like dancing shouldn't mean they can make dancing criminal (targeting a class of "dancers" for special punishment based on conduct between consenting adults where no harm occurs), no matter if 99% stand on one side and only 1% jive. Attempts to limit free expression of another person's liberty because you don't like the behaviour are now subject to appeal as unconstitutional.
Call it the " Separation of Dogma and Reality ". Progressive
It seems logical, from Justice Kennedy's opinion, that numerous challenges may be forthcoming to Same-sex marriage, Gays in the Military, and other areas of perceived discriminatory status based on sexual orientation formerly justified by legislatures under the guise of "moral disapproval". Similar challenges may arise with regard to consensual Euthanasia (opposed on predominantly moral grounds), and numerous other medical fronts, including breast-feeding (although "private" and "discreetly public" may shape that issue), and perhaps medical marijuana (most of the War on Drugs is morals-driven).
Equality is good. Liberty is good. Privacy is good. Free will is good.
If you don't like someone else's consensual choices, mind your own business and stop moralizing.
Welcome to the enlightened 21st Century, America.
We Canadians (and many Europeans) are glad you joined us.
edit:
Welcome to the enlightened 21st Century, America.
We Canadians (and many Europeans) are glad you joined us
Golly, thanks.
Originally posted by Eugene
Golly, thanks.
didn't mean to seem facetious.
would've added a tongue-in-cheek smiley, but in a thread about a sodomy ruling...
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Welcome to the enlightened 21st Century, America.
We Canadians (and many Europeans) are glad you joined us.
edit:
Yeah we're behind in civil liberties but at least we don't have cameras at every street corner...
FVCK! We do. GOd dammit.
Originally posted by groverat
Sez me:
literally-non-existent
Then your previous post is literally empty and without purpose.
Fixation - an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment
But if it had been decided the other way, there would be a slippery slope in the other direction, where anything that one state considers immoral could be legislated. How could you prevent making masturbation illegal, or men wearing women's dresses, or interracial sex, etc.?
Originally posted by BRussell
I heard today a good analysis. The Santorum argument is basically a slippery slope argument - that now maybe no private moral behavior can be illegal. Sure, it's possible.
But if it had been decided the other way, there would be a slippery slope in the other direction, where anything that one state considers immoral could be legislated. How could you prevent making masturbation illegal, or men wearing women's dresses, or interracial sex, etc.?
Santorum's argument isn't a slippery slope because it doesn't not assume an extreme from from a moderate position. The court has affirmed that the state has no position to enforce laws concerning actions the majority may be uncomfortable with unless they can prove there is a legitimate state interest. That interest use to be the promotion of marriage and also what the majority was comfortable with sexually. However it is obvious that the state no longer has a compelling reason to promote marriage. Likewise the court has stated that with regard to privacy rights that if the state cannot delineate a real reason, the rights go to the persons.
The only criteria that applies now is consent and the right to privacy. Many acts are permissable under those two criteria. Santorum applying this criteria is not a slippery slope because it is still just the same criteria. A slippery slope might be taking it from say sexual actions to say euthanasia which is not a sexual act. (At least not yet
Take the two criteria, the act and see if it should be legal. It is simple enough to do. If it is a sexual act that can be done in private with consent and has no legitimate state reason for stopping it, it should be legal.
Sodomy = yes
Prostitution = yes
Adultery = yes
Incest = yes
Homosexual marriage = yes
The state has no compelling reason to stop marriage because sex no longer occurs within marriage nor do most legal agreements require marriage. Marriage is a legal agreement and in most ways mostly an anarchism now that the government has made it possible to get spousal and child support outside of marriage.
Likewise if you can enter into a marriage agreement with both sexes and also multiple times within your lifetime, though not at the same time, how can the state really say you shouldn't be allowed to practice bigamy? It is just a legal agreement that formalizes sexual relations. Why should the state be able to decree how many people you formalize it with at once since you could formalize it with multiple parters serially, why not at once?
Incest, the genetic part is mostly just hearsay with little to no scientific backing. There are a few recessive disorders that could be tested for, but even then. If the state cannot prevent the reproduction of a woman who has had multiple sucessive generations of mental disfunction from reproducing, why should it be able to keep related family members from marrying and reproducing. The development of the child before birth is not something the state can legislate or else abortion would be illegal. The child could be born deformed and then being a person, the state would assist it.
Prostitution is already regular heterosexual intercourse in most cases. The only reason the state regulates it is that by not allowing men to simply pay for periodic sex, they can trick them into supporting both women and their children via state sanctioned routes, aka marriage or child support.
Finally with regard to interracial sex, etc. Many of these items were illegal at one time. They were overturned by democratic means instead of inventing rights to unpopular laws.
If you did want to slippery slope it you could add the following.
Euthanasia = yes
Recreational drug use = yes
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
The reason why the texas law was unconstitutional (or what have you) is that it only applied to one specific group, consenting same sex sodomists. Now if the law was generally applied, and generally enforced, then there would be no special group recieving undue punishment. The constitution does ensure equal protection under the law, and a law that targets one group and not all is unconstitutional. This was one of the justices arguments. When looking at it this way the Senators comments make little sense at all.
Billybob,
I don't mean to be rude, but this law was not overturned on the equal protection clause. It was overturned on the right to privacy, hence the thread title.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Santorum's argument isn't a slippery slope because it doesn't not assume an extreme from from a moderate position.
Of course it's a slippery slope argument: now that we've let X happen, we can't stop Y and Z from happening. This is what you're saying in the rest of your post. You're saying that by protecting gay sex we've now opened the door to all these other bad things using the same logic. If you prefer some other phrase because you think homosexuality is as bad as it gets, OK, but that's really just word games.
Sodomy = yes
Prostitution = yes
Adultery = yes
Incest = yes
Homosexual marriage = yes
Sodomy is what this case was about.
Prostitution: there certainly could be a state interest in keeping prostitution illegal.
Adultery: not illegal now in most places as far as I know.
Incest: Again, not illegal now as far as I know, unless a minor is involved of course in which case it fails your consent test.
Homosexual marriage: That's no longer private bedroom behavior. Marriage has many public and legal and tax implications etc.
Again, the point of my post was to have us consider the implications of having no constitutional protection for private behavior that the majority happens to consider immoral.
Finally with regard to interracial sex, etc. Many of these items were illegal at one time. They were overturned by democratic means instead of inventing rights to unpopular laws.
That's not true - at least some of the South's laws against interracial marriage were overturned by the courts based on equal protection.
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course it's a slippery slope argument: now that we've let X happen, we can't stop Y and Z from happening. This is what you're saying in the rest of your post. You're saying that by protecting gay sex we've now opened the door to all these other bad things using the same logic. If you prefer some other phrase because you think homosexuality is as bad as it gets, OK, but that's really just word games.
Sodomy is what this case was about.
Prostitution: there certainly could be a state interest in keeping prostitution illegal.
Adultery: not illegal now in most places as far as I know.
Incest: Again, not illegal now as far as I know, unless a minor is involved of course in which case it fails your consent test.
Homosexual marriage: That's no longer private bedroom behavior. Marriage has many public and legal and tax implications etc.
Again, the point of my post was to have us consider the implications of having no constitutional protection for private behavior that the majority happens to consider immoral.
That's not true - at least some of the South's laws against interracial marriage were overturned by the courts based on equal protection.
Again I disagree because there is no change in the criteria. Most slippery slope definitions would say that if you allow the first step, the others will follow because of vagueness of definition and incrementalism.
A slipperly-slope doesn't use the same logic. It uses incrementalism to move from a to z and thus don't you dare allow a. No one has argued that this decision will bring about any new criteria, rather that when the same criteria/legal reasoning is applied in other areas, they will be legal as well.
With the other acts I stated, there absolutely is NO change in the criteria to be considered. All are private acts that the state can demonstrate no compelling reason to legislate.
Would you consider it a slippery slope if I said that a case that allowed marriage between someone black and someone white would likely apply to hispanics, asians, indians, etc as well? Of course not because there is no change in reasoning. If I said that it would be the first in a series of steps to destroy marriage or allow non-adult or non-human marriages, that would be different.
Again the court could have found against the law using the equal protection clause, but instead they profoundly strengthened the right to privacy. The bar was set much higher as a result. It isn't merely enough for the state to have an interest for something to be illegal. Rather the state must prove that it's interest is so great that it should be allowed to override your right to privacy. They could not prove this interest with sodomy. It is my contention that they will be unable to prove overriding interest in many other areas as well. Again this is not a slipperyslope, it is just application of the courts ruling.
I will give you that based off what you said, the state might be able to show overriding interest with homosexual marriage, but the twin pronged attack of privacy along with equal protection, it will fall. I will admit though that it would require additional criteria apart from this one ruling and thus could be a bit of a slippery-slope.
With regard to adultery, I didn't mean to imply that it was something to be thrown in jail over, but rather it is a grounds for divorce filing in many states and can affect divorce matters though again this is less so with no fault divorce.
Incest, well this article pretty much sums up my feelings on it.slate commentary
Prostitution is where this could really have a big effect. The state must show a reason compelling enough to override the right to privacy. This is, outside of strict moral objection, very hard to do. Anyone who has argued for legalized prostitution has said, and rightly so, that if they took the same actions without the exchange of money, it wouldn't be illegal. The state must show that the privacy right must be overridden in order to... what, show that someone was given a $20-50 or whatever it costs? Good luck.
Nick
You're trying to argue that there is no difference between sodomy in the bedroom and these other things like prostitution and gay marriage under the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore they will become legal as well. I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
Exactly. I would add, also, that many of the things trumpetman mentioned have implied or explicit problems with the "consent" part of consenting adults, which keeps them from being purely private matters. Adultery involves breach-of-contract, again keeping it from being a purely private matter. And surely, trumpetman, you don't really think that inbreeding is bunk? Check out the rate of birth defects and inherited diseases in Saudi Arabia, where cousin marriages are often encouraged. It's elysium for a human geneticist. There's a clear public interest in preventing consanguinity.
"Let the democratic process do its thing" makes little sense. One of the fundamental roles of the Constituion (interpreted by the courts) is to prevent "tyranny of the majority". People have certain rights that cannot be subject to the whims of the electorate. Equal protection would have been such a cleaner way to decide this case, though - right-to-privacy really does open up a can of worms. In this age of "Total...err, Terrorist Information Awareness", though, a little renewed emphasis on privacy would be a good thing.
Originally posted by trumptman
Billybob,
I don't mean to be rude, but this law was not overturned on the equal protection clause. It was overturned on the right to privacy, hence the thread title.
Nick
While I agree that the supremes majority majority descision was in reference to the right to privacy, O'Conner's argument for repealing the law followed the equal protection clause. Both are the judgements of the court. Often the minority majorities descisions are the ones looked at in future cases since they have no less merit. Her argument was the most convincing to me.
(on the issue of privacy, it isnt terribly clear this isnt what the writers of the bill of rights had in mind...)
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the definition of slippery slope, especially when we agree on what we're talking about: that if you do X, then Y and Z will follow. I think it's a type of slippery slope argument, but call it something else if you wish.
You're trying to argue that there is no difference between sodomy in the bedroom and these other things like prostitution and gay marriage under the Supreme Court ruling, and therefore they will become legal as well. I don't believe that follows, for example, because prostitution involves some type of public solicitation, and gay marriage involves legal/tax and other non-private implications.
Prostitution and public solitation. What about calls to escort services from your bedroom?
Likewise with gay marriage I did concede that it would likely fall not only under this ruling but a ruling involving equal protection as well.
Nick
Originally posted by Towel
Exactly. I would add, also, that many of the things trumpetman mentioned have implied or explicit problems with the "consent" part of consenting adults, which keeps them from being purely private matters. Adultery involves breach-of-contract, again keeping it from being a purely private matter. And surely, trumpetman, you don't really think that inbreeding is bunk? Check out the rate of birth defects and inherited diseases in Saudi Arabia, where cousin marriages are often encouraged. It's elysium for a human geneticist. There's a clear public interest in preventing consanguinity.
"Let the democratic process do its thing" makes little sense. One of the fundamental roles of the Constituion (interpreted by the courts) is to prevent "tyranny of the majority". People have certain rights that cannot be subject to the whims of the electorate. Equal protection would have been such a cleaner way to decide this case, though - right-to-privacy really does open up a can of worms. In this age of "Total...err, Terrorist Information Awareness", though, a little renewed emphasis on privacy would be a good thing.
Adultery is a breech of contract in the regard that it could be used as grounds for divorce, yes. However since we have no-fault divorce now it seldom is a legal matter to be dealt with. In essence it is an anarchism on the law books, but then again so were most sodomy laws. Marriage and partner obligations have changed dramatically over the last few decades. Adultery was quite the issue when women couldn't be professionals. Sexuality is very different now and likewise a man or woman leaving one another does not doom a woman to poverty.
Letting the democratic process does make sense in lieu of creating imbalances within rights that literally make situations ungovernable. When you nationalize issues it can swing both ways. This is why people get their panties in such a bunch about Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal and becoming more legal in more states by the day when Roe was passed. If Roe is ever overturned by the fetus being given human status, it won't revert it to the states, it will criminalize abortion nationally.
Sodomy laws for the most part were gone. There were about, I could be recalling this wrong because I posted this list a while ago, 8-10 states that still had laws, and they were enforced pretty much never. Given a few years they likely would wise up as well. However now it is just one big national target. If you can find a reason, you only have to win in one place now to start restricting people's rights. As I mentioned as did you, equal protection would have been much cleaner. This really did open up a can of worms.
Lastly with inbreeding, I suppose if you have a country doing it successively for multiple generations you do see increases in recessive traits. I did mention that the state could require testing, but you also have to remember that sex no longer equals reproduction. That is why I complained about the bar being raised too high. Before the state could have an interest. Now that interest must be shown to be strong enough to outweigh the privacy right. If it is just the periodic family members, it is unlikely to do this.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
anarchism on the law books
anachronism