To: sinkspur
It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case.
Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything.
8 posted on
04/26/2003 12:44:17 PM PDT by
bart99
To: bart99
and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.Do you support the Patriot Act?
I'm amazed at the number of people on this site who rant and rave at the government's invasion of the privacy of potential terrorists but have no problem with the government peeping into bedroom windows.
11 posted on
04/26/2003 12:50:02 PM PDT by
sinkspur
To: bart99
... that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.
Precisely! There was a recent case where an amatuer surgeon denutted another consenting adult, and ended up in jail for illegal surgery. How would that fit into sinky's world? How about "Doctor" Jack Kevorkian and his anti-Catholic death machine? Let's not forget abortion either, drug laws, prostitution or even (horros, no!) the unlicensed practice of accounting! All legal in sinkys Brave New World of Privacy and Consenting Adults.
12 posted on
04/26/2003 12:50:40 PM PDT by
narses
(Christe Eleison)
To: bart99
It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case. Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything. The Privacy issue is my primary concern. The whole problem with the invented right of privacy is that as a "constitutional right" it supercedes other laws. Hence it leads to the legality of any action taken in private. Think drug use, euthenasia, etc. Otherwise you end up with 9 justices picking and choosing. Even when 2 constitutional rights colide, you still have judges making these determinations.
15 posted on
04/26/2003 12:54:03 PM PDT by
dwswager
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson