victimless activities

[Brooks R. Fudenberg]

richard duncan wrote:
>
>
> But is "making love" a fundamental constitutional right. "Making
> love," of course, is merely a euphemism for doing as I please and
> without regard to the costs I may be imposing on anyone else. As John
> Garvey points out in What Are Freedoms For?, although the dissent in
> Bowers v. Hardwick defended Hardwick's right to participate in a
> consensual "intimate relationship," the facts of the case involve not
> an intimate relationship but a one-night-stand between Hardwick and a
> stranger from from out of state who pleaded guilty to reduced charges
> and promptly left town. As Garvey puts it, "what Hardwick's suit asked
> for was the freedom to reach an orgasm in the particular way that he
> favored."
>

Are you saying:

(1) Long-term homosexual relationships are constitutionally protected,
but not homosexual one-night stands?

If so, would you say,

(2) Long-term homosexual and heterosexual relationships are
constitutionally protected, but neither hetero- nor homo-sexual one
night stands?

If not, are you saying,

(3) Traditional long-term hetero relationships are constitutionally
protected, and other relationships, if they are constitutionally
protected, are protected to the degree they are like traditional
long-term hetero relationships?

And if so, would you find constitutional protection for the freedom to
reach an orgasm in the particular way that one favors within a
long-term, hetero, relationship, or would you allow the State to
regulate styles of intercourse?



> By the way, although Justice White's much-maligned opinion in Hardwick
> is often predicted to be on the verge of being overruled, the news of
> its demise may be premature. The reasoning and substantive due process
> methodology of Hardwick was completely vindicated by the current Court
> in Glucksberg. See Duncan, "They Call Me Eight Eyes": Hardwick's
> Respectability, Romer's Narrowness, And Same-Sex Marriage, 32
> Creighton L.Rev 241 (1998).  --Rick Duncan
>
> > This discussion is getting a bit silly. Even if Rick is right, we would
> > have to add the people created by making love. Thus, if we stopped making
> > war, there would be more people in the world. If we stopped making love,
> > there would be no people in the world. He might just as well say that
> > breathing causes more deaths than war.
> > Bruce Altschuler
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Richards, Edward P. wrote:
> >
> > > > Rick, you cannot be serious.  "Make war" is less deadly than "make
> > > > love"???
> > >
> > > If you figure that in the global scheme of things, wars have not killed even a
> > > small percentage of the people that communicable diseases kill, and that almost
> > > any communicable disease can be transmitted sexually, then Rick is probably
> > > right!
> > >
> > > Ed:-)
> > >
> >
>
> --
>                    ------------
>                    Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)
>
> "If there is government in Hell, it is most probably a body of
> unelected lawyers, serving eternal appointments, and issuing 100
> page decrees."