Where does it all end? Where, indeed. Without taking sides in the debate in this public forum, which would no doubt be used later if I determined to run for office or clerk for the Supremes, I offer the following excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Quote:
|
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.
|
Singpilot, your argument about "moving to the nuisance" no longer holds water since the case of Spur Industries v. Webb, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). Del Webb built Sun City next to a feedlot. Sun City residents complain about smell, sue feedlot. Court says, yes, there's a nuisance, but the remedy is, Sun City residents will pay to relocate the feedlot!
Thought you might find that interesting. By the way, if somebody tries to close an airport near me I will spend my own after-tax dollars litigating my right to practice wheel landings until you can't feel where sky ends and grass begins.