We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Privacy, as the article points out, is never addressed in the Constitution, except in an indirect fashion, and usually as it relates to property. (Search & Seizure, etc.)
Yet some Supreme Court opinions have, correctly, pointed out that privacy is a right which exists in the penumbra of the Constitution, even as other SC justices have clearly delineated the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution.
Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue of privacy and the Constitution, one thing still amazes me. Courts will utilize the issue of privacy in some meaningful situations (sex and marriage, for example), but not in others (the NSA).
Ostensibly, the reason for this is that the privacy accorded a family presents no risk to the nation or its inhabitants (a thought I'd disagree with in some cases), while trying to prevent a terrorist act is a meaningful thing for all citizens, and therefore we should be willing to turn a blind eye for our own safety (though a recent court ruling seems to indicate a shift in this thought process....I remain skeptical that this will go far).
Privacy is, from my perspective, the very root of the Constitution. Giving up our rights to any level of privacy is something which should not be mandatory for any reason, and should only be requested in a voluntary fashion. Individuals should approach these requests with a mixture of caution and suspicion.
I just find it amusing that in this particular case, privacy is so central and important, but in cases involving the real invasion of privacy (NSA), there are a host of 'mitigating factors', all of which can be Constitutionally 'justified'.
Privacy is central to the Constitution because it is the primary right we all need to have to live our lives and be individuals.
Which brings me back to what makes this whole thing so intriguing. It's OK here, but not OK there, and guess who is making the choice of where it's OK? The very organization which isn't supposed to be making that choice.
But so many citizens confuse 'government' with 'the people', they don't ask any more questions beyond this.
as was mentioned yesterday on this site--it's not about what's legal. IT IS ABOUT WHAT SELLS books, tv shows, movies, etc. If it is illegal it gains a greater profit. Therefore, now that homosexuality is legal, and polygamy is legal, you can count on the mongrels in Hollywood selling pedophilia next. Right there in your own frontroom! Unless, of course, you and the rest of the now Jewish, non gay, white community would like to stand up and call it like it is. The Hollywood community has been given a free ticket to do as it pleases for far too long. Now we are down to the last sacred place(trust?) Babies next you cowards--babies next!
The government has no right to tell people how to live, and that includes telling to not live in a polyamorous relationship.
Any laws against polygamy are religiously inspired (they were created by Christian pressure to stop the spread of the Mormons), effectively impressing a state religion at the federal level and are thus unconstitutional...
It isn't just polygamy, which would make all of our Muslim immigrants happy. The New York Times is hosting a discussion on "marriage discrimination." http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal
Those who have supported SSM have denigrated the slippery slope argument, but now those same people are making it, so if indeed a permanent, exclusive, and monogamous legal arrangement for homosexual couples was not the goal of SSM, and the arguments used to justify it are now being used to justify legalizing virtually any relationship, then the original justifications are suspect. Were they lies to hoodwink the public like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" -- a lie told because if the truth had been advanced - the intention to redefine marriage out of existence - it would have been alot more difficult to sell the sentimental arguments that alot of the naive and unlettered believe.
There may - I say may - be a few homosexuals who do desire a relationship approximating marriage, should these people exist, then they too will be harmed by the disappearance of marriage. Yet I see few homosexuals or other advocates of "social change" standing up and arguing for, say, limiting legal relationships to two, unrelated people over the age of consent. Usually, they argue the opposite.