Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: discostu
This shouldn't have any effect on sodomy laws that cover gays and straights.

It did. It wasn't on equal protection basis.

310 posted on 06/26/2003 8:37:27 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]


To: The Red Zone
One word:
Ugh

While I don't actually think this kind of stuff is the government's business this penumbra concept thing is very irritating. To use a metaphor that will speak to Tucsonans: it's like putting out a fire by blowing up the mountain.
379 posted on 06/26/2003 8:56:30 AM PDT by discostu (you've got to bleed for the dancer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies ]

To: The Red Zone
It did. It wasn't on equal protection basis.

That's what surprises me. I can understand the logic that if one can consent to anal sex, it should not matter whther they are male or female. Equal Protection.

The Right to Privacy argument seems to me to be a bit off the mark, since the state can and does enforce all sorts of laws regarding sexual activities that are done "in private". I wonder how explicit the opinion was about explaining the limits.

408 posted on 06/26/2003 9:09:48 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson