I liked the general point it was making, and disliked that it rested so
heavily on defending Santorum. I still feel Santorum's arguments were bogus,
but I have to admit I don't really fear marriage will be legalized between
sisters/brothers and parents/children, because I think it will be found that
the state has a compelling interest in controlling the circumstances under
which it licenses potential procreation (that is, if it is going to continue
to issue marriage licenses at all, which I have mixed feelings about in the
first place).
I blogged on this at the time, since I was outraged by Santorum's remarks.
See my archives from last spring--at the old Blogspot site. (Haven't moved
'em yet.)
--Q.M.
* * * *
I had no idea what this article was about, so I looked it up.
Bowers v. Hardwick was a 1986 decision of the Supreme Court. The
Bowers decision upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law
that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting
adults. (Not distinguishing between homo- or heterosexual couples.)
Seventeen years later, in 2003, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled
Bowers in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and held that such laws are
unconstitutional.
It all centers around the 14th amendment. "No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In May 2003 the senator said he did not like homosexual acts (although
he had "nothing against homosexuals") and said if the Lawrence
decision about the right to privacy were extended, then not only
sodomy, but also fornication, adultery, polygamy, group sex,
prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and
(arguably) bestiality are protected as specifications of the
constitutional right of privacy. All of these acts and practices are,
or can be, consensual. If consent provides the standard of inclusion
within the right of privacy, they must all be admitted.
Slippery slope?
G.H.
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, Joy McCann
<jmmccann_at_s...> wrote:
> A topic for our times (and, um, places).
>
> --Q.M.
>
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/061703B.html
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OliveStarlightOrchestra/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscr
ibe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2004-04-10 23:50:46