Louisiana Constitution right to privacy held to protect conse nsua

[Michael MASINTER]

I think Rick captures the point of division.  But if Rick is right, the
battlefield is not the bedroom, but the marriage licence office, the
civil rights office, and other public institutions. Accordingly, privacy
should prevail across the borderline, on both sides of the division.  We
can all cheer the triumph of privacy and return to the battlefield.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at law.acast.nova.edu

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, richard duncan wrote:

> >
> > I applaud the Louisiana decision, but the rationale can't really be
> > Michael's can it?  Is it likely, for example, that the Louisiana Supreme
> > Court would throw out an incest charge involving consenting adults who
> > happen to be brother and sister, mother and son, etc.?  Recall, for
> > example, that Justice Blackmun insisted that upholding Hardwick's
> > constitutional right to sexual intimacy did not require him (i.e.,
> > Blackmun) to find constitutional protection for adultery or incest.  Isn't
> > the point, for most of us, *not* that the activity is "quintessentially
> > private," as would be the incest, but, rather, as Rick and others on this
> > list fear, that most (though surely not all) of those who support the
> > decision find nothing at all troublesome in same-sex sexuality?
> >
> > Sandy Levinson
> ______________________
>
> I haven't read the Louisiana decision yet, but I would be shocked to
> learn that the good citizens of Louisiana intended to codify the
> Sexual Revolution as a fundamental constitutional right when they
> ratified the "privacy" amendment in 1974. Just another example of an
> unelected body of lawyers imposing its views on the
> people and explaining that the Constitution made them do it.
>
> With respect to Sandy's other point, I don't believe that most people
> on this list who support the gay rights agenda truly "find nothing at
> all troublesome in same-sex sexuality." It is a rare person, liberal
> or conservative, whose heart leaps with joy when his or her son or
> daughter announces that they are about to "marry" a person of the same
> sex. When all is said and done, most people understand the nature of
> sexuality and understand that it is inherently heterosexual. I think
> the real dividing line with respect to the gay issue is over the question
> of harm. As Barney Frank likes to put it, "if I want to marry my
> partner, how does that hurt anyone else?" Some of us are persuaded by
> the point implicit in this question, others believe that the question
> leaps over the gulf between private and public morality. But that, I
> think, is the question that divides us.
>
>
> --
>                    ------------
>                    Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)
>
> "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with
> substance"  --Sam Brown
>