home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.legal
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cthorne
- From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
- Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.135929.8392@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
- Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
- Organization: The Ohio State University
- References: <1992Nov19.161549.10095@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> <13311@optilink.COM> <By2t7H.3DF@world.std.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:59:29 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <By2t7H.3DF@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
- >cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
-
- >>I think [the Hardwick] decision was wrong. What two consenting adults
- >>do in private is none of the government's business.
-
- >But that has nothing to do with what the court was asked to decide.
- >The question was not whether or not it is the business of the federal
- >government to regulate the conduct of consenting adults. The question
- >was whether or not it is the business of the federal government to
- >regulate a state's legislative power over the conduct of consenting
- >adults. Now, you may feel that prohibiting sodomy is wrong, but all
- >the court decided was that such prohibition did not violate the
- >Constitution.
-
- And in past times the same Supreme Court ruled that they should not interfere
- when states enact and enforce segregation laws (Plessy vs Ferguson--163 U.S.
- 537 (1896). It was not until the early 60's that the Supreme Court voted to
- disallow single party politics in the South. Now in Bauers vs Hardwick they
- said that states may invade the privacy of the bedroom to enforce a sexual
- mores of a community.
-
- Charlie
-
-