One-handed typing: the doom of mankind!

[elfs]

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent from the ruling Lawrence v. Texas, said that the court's overturning its own opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, "calls into question state laws against masturbation."

Remember, this isn't just Scalia spouting off here. His version of the constitution may be weird, but it's consistent in the notion that some things, such as sexuality and privacy, which aren't explicit in the constitution, are not to be dealt with by the courts but must be deferred to the states. On the other hand, religion, which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is the province of the Court, which has the final say and sometimes defers to "the verdict of history." Anyone who remembers the Judge Bork case can remember his dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut.

As if that weren't bad enough, the religious right is now interested in "strengthening marriage," which include "addressing deliberate childlessness is marriage."

Isn't that special?

Comments

[solarbird]

Are there other political acts that would reconnect procreation and marriage? Perhaps, if we are prepared to think "outside the box." For example, we could turn one of our opponents' key arguments back on them. Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so (for men, in the Age of Viagra, the line would admittedly be harder to draw).

From a long Family Research Council paper here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04J01

It's all the "fault" of Griswald v. Connecticut, that legalised birth control. That's where things went "wrong" for marriage.

They're deeply crazy, you know.