Exactly. I just read the article on the 16 year old Iranian girl who was hung from a crane for having sex. She claimed she was raped, but that only infuriated the judge who personally put the noose around her neck. All this based solely on religion. While we don't hang children here for such "crimes" as being raped, we must continually guard against the same mindset by religious fanatics who want their Biblical moral code as the basis for the laws in our Country. Mullahs and ministers need to keep their religions out of the Constitution and the laws of this Nation.
No people who tell lies are wacko liars.
LP? -- Thanks for the clue.. -- I think I see the pattern here. You're a disgruntled lawyer I've 'outed' before at FR, and then at LP. -- That you OPH? -- Just couldn't stay away without some kind of 'payback', eh?
LOL. You really think too highly of yourself. I doubt that you have ever "outed" anyone. And no, I'm not "OPH".
It worked. All you can do is sputter about "libertines".
It doesn't work, other than to prove that you are a liar. You can't cut a small sentence out of a paragraph and ignore everything that preceeds and follows it.
You cite 'penumbras' and incorporation doctrine to support your belief that the 9th is "unsubstantive"? Dream on.
You really can't read can you?
He's absolutely right. -- But the State has no power to write laws that are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
And Justice Harlan belived that Forincation, Adultery, Homosexuality, and Incest were all reasonable and necessary.
Yet the very inclusion of the category of morality among state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community, [367 U.S. 497, 546] but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well. Indeed to attempt a line between public behavior and that which is purely consensual or solitary would be to withdraw from community concern a range of subjects with which every society in civilized times has found it necessary to deal. The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis. Compare McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 . Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids altogether, but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality altogether, or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy. ..."[T]he family . . . is not beyond regulation," Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, and it would be an absurdity to suggest either that offenses may not be committed in the bosom of the family or that the home can be made a sanctuary for crime. The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
So, since you conceed that he is absolutely right, you by default conceed that laws against Fornication, Adultery, Homosexuality and Incest are all Constitutional.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you disagree with?
I am only pointing out facts. And you have a reputation which follows you to other boards, boards other than LP I might add.
You've been using this same ploy since the first time you registered at FR, years ago. -- Pretty sad when a hot shot lawyer is reduced to pointing the liar-liar finger. Grow up.
You think you know who I am, but you couldn't be further off. Keep trying, you'll get it some day. LOL!