Bob Tiernan <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote:
>When you say things like this it appears that
>the real issue is that you have a personal
>problems with the behavior and are hiding behind
>the states' rights issue, and the tyranny of
>the majority concept.
I guess appearances can deceive. I happen to have no problem with
responsible gay behavior, and think the government should stay out of
the irresponsible kind, if in private.
>That sounds like you're saying that it
>would be okay to have what even you'd
>consider to be unconstitutional laws
>if they can easily be enforced (i.e.
>that it would be really easy for
>police, code-compliance officers etc
>to spot violations in the open).
>That's naughty of you.
Actually, I oppose ALL laws that violate Constitutional rights, and at
least oppose those whose content is not necessarily specifically
protected by the Constitution, but whose enforcement essentially is.
The enforceability concept is one I use to expand the scope of
Constitutional protections, not to contract it.
I think your best point (and I would be happy to be fully persuaded to
your point of view other than "it's the right result") is that privacy
is simply one of the unenumerated rights. I would then extend that to
the right to privacy to one's earnings and livelihood (as opposed to
one's corporate business books), to eat, drink, screw and smoke in
one's own home without limitation (harm to other excepted) the right
to travel freely in one's own nation with no record kept of it, no
identity check, the right to buy, own, and carry guns anonymously
throughout one's nation, etc.
