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

To: MarkL
It seems to me that this latest SCOTUS ruling has really opened up a pandoras box on this issue and others.

As much as the defenders of this decision deny it, it does open up a lot of other challenges.

Prostitution can be tacitly legislated since it is a commerical transaction.

Not so incest. There is a current case in California where a 17 year old boy is being charged with a felony count of incest for having sex with his 22 year old sister (who has not been charged). She got pregnant but miscarried the child so that is not an issue in the charge.

The people who supported the reduction of sentencing against members of the same sex who commit acts of statutory rape (or child molestation) (they thought 17 years sentencing was extreme for a homosexual act committed by an 18 year old on a 14 year old) have been silent on thi consensual incest case.

If a person grows the marijuana at home (indoors) and smokes it at home (indoors), and does not traffic in his stash, I don't know if the states or feds can legislate against it anymore (as long as there is no commerce). After all it is the act of a consenting adult in the privacy of his or her own home.

Don't expect to see these other laws dropped as quickly as all of the sodomy laws were. Other sex laws will remain to be challenged as will drug laws, and other privacy laws.

Even the states that are trying to outlaw tobacco smoking at home (under the guise of child abuse) don't seem to feel threatened by the Supreme Court's stance on privacy.

Think that the Court's recognition of privacy will keep the doctors from sharing medical information with the pharmecutical companies or police?

12 posted on 07/05/2003 6:31:18 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: weegee
Prostitution can be tacitly legislated since it is a commerical transaction.

Well, maybe not... In order to skirt the laws (unsuccessfuly), it seems that prostitutes designate their payments as gifts, saying that the "gift" is a token of appreciation for their time. As such, if it really is a "gift," then according to the tax codes, it is NEVER taxable income, and the "gift giver" is only subject to paying a gift tax if the total annual "gift" exceeds $11,000 to this one individual. As such, I believe that there may be some validity to the assertion that it is not a commercial transaction, any more than when a boyfriend gives his girlfriend a diamond pendant or earrings, and she thanks him in a private and personal manner. It could be considered a gift in the truest sense of the word. Technically, the prostitute is not forced or in any way compelled to provide the "gift giver" with sex.

Mark

18 posted on 07/07/2003 11:25:41 AM PDT by MarkL (OK, I'm going to crawl back under my rock now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: weegee
"Think that the Court's recognition of privacy will keep the doctors from sharing medical information with the pharmecutical companies or police?"

That's not up to the doctor's anymore. If your doctor has signed up in accordance with HIPPA, the government can request this information and you have agreed to give it to them.


22 posted on 07/07/2003 11:53:41 AM PDT by Jesse (I didn't leave...The GOP...left me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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