home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!optilink!cramer
- From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
- Newsgroups: misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
- Message-ID: <13343@optilink.COM>
- Date: 23 Nov 92 17:45:21 GMT
- References: <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> <1992Nov22.223446.4225@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Nov22.223446.4225@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
- > In article <24067@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
- # #You obviously did not read my post clearly enough. I said that I was in
- # #agreement with the Supreme Court in the case in question because the Appellee
- # #argued that homosexuality was a fundamental right which could not be abridged.
- # #They rightly ruled that they could find no where in the Constitution where it
- # #stated that the right to homosexuality could not be abridged. And, if I were
- # #deciding the case, I would give the same decision if asked the same question.
- #
- # Here's a hypothetical.
- #
- # Can Georgia constitutionally ban heterosexual sex?
- # --
- # ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
-
- Not between a married couple. In light of the past decisions of
- the Supreme Court, I wouldn't say FOR SURE that they couldn't
- ban it between an unmarried couple. The Bill of Rights was not
- a limitation on state governments doing dumb things until the
- 14th Amendment, and even afterwards, it only limits state
- governments in some areas.
-
- --
- Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
- We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors. But that would
- be unfair -- to the sailors. They, at least, are spending their own money.
-