The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution's protection of privacy.
The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies.
In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.
Disapproval of homosexuality cannot justify invading the houses, hearts and minds of citizens who choose to live their lives differently.
I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.
By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.
Who is to say that 5 men 10 years ago were right whereas 5 men looking the other direction today are wrong.
What the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations.
It is precisely because the issue raised by this case touches the heart of what makes individuals what they are that we should be especially sensitive to the rights of those whose choices upset the majority.
The flaw in the statute is that in all its applications, it operates on a fundamentally mistaken premise that high solicitation costs are an accurate measure of fraud.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.