Society cannot make a determination of who is protected by the Constitution and who isn't. The right to privacy exists period. Numerous cases have been thrown out of court because of the right to privacy. You cannot go into a home even with a warrant and look for some activity or evidence not in the probable cause warrant. Only if that illegal activity was found through a legal search would it be admissible. So unfortunately for you, the 4th Amendment protects everyone.
Oops. No. The citizens of the State of Texas outvoted you and said it doesn't. Sorry.
And where does it stand today?
Huh? Look, either an adult has a right to privacy to do drugs behind closed doors or they don't. What is it? Answer the question without weaseling. It's a straightfoweard question -- give me a straightforward answer.
I'm not sure you would understand a straightforward answer if it smacked you in the head. But I'll try. All activities in a home are part of a right to privacy. Illegal acts are still illegal, but the perpetrators have the protection of the home, until probable cause exists to go in. Then and only then, can police seize persons and evidence as part of the warrant. They cannot go looking for other "violations" of the law not a part of the warrant, but can in most jurisdictions use that evidence if found during the legal search for the warranted evidence. Is that clear enough for you?
As I said before, if it was illegal to be a homosexual, then you'd have a point. The law does not prohibit homosexuality (be still, my heart). The law prohibits a certain type of immoral behavior.
As far as I know, there's no such laws anymore. If there were and they were enforced only against homosexuals, they would be unconstitutional for several reasons.
Once again, I suggest you learn a bit about the Constitution, rights, privileges, freedoms, activities, etc. Concentrate on the meaning of rights. BTW, have you devised that new law yet?
As I said before, if it was illegal to be a homosexual, then you'd have a point. The law does not prohibit homosexuality (be still, my heart). The law prohibits a certain type of immoral behavior.
MAC:
As far as I know, there's no such laws anymore. If there were and they were enforced only against homosexuals, they would be unconstitutional for several reasons. Once again, I suggest you learn a bit about the Constitution, rights, privileges, freedoms, activities, etc. Concentrate on the meaning of rights.
Well said Mac.
As we see paulsen has boldly shown us where his heart lies.. A law to 'prohibit homos' gets him all excited. Very telling..
Who says they are? I think this makes the third time now that I've stated that the law is against a behavior/activity, not people.
"And where does it stand today?"
AFAIK, the citizens of the State of Texas are still against it.
Is that clear enough for you?"
Nope. What you've described is exacly the situation as it exists today. I want to know why, if there is a constitutional right to privacy -- as you say there is -- it doesn't extend to the private use of drugs, prostitution or gambling in the home, or even the possession (not use) of drugs in the car.
Look. Forget it. You can't answer that because there IS no constitutional right to privacy. If there was, these activities would be covered. They'd have to be.
"BTW, have you devised that new law yet?"
Yeah. I already told you. I'd simply take the existing state laws against pedophilia or bestiality or necrophilia or incest and modify them by substituting "homosexual sodomy" in the appropriate areas.
Those laws were good in all the states that had them -- it wasn't until the federal courts got involved that they were overturned. But I thought you didn't want the federal government involved in these types of decisions. I thought you wanted these issues decided by each state. Am I wrong?
Or are you kind of flexible when it comes to constitutional issues -- whichever way you get the most favorable treatment, that's the way you go?