Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 31, 2014, 12:26:49 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  is marital rape a constitutionally protected right accd. to this language?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: see below. majority decision in Griswold v CT
yes   -2 (16.7%)
no   -10 (83.3%)
other (explain)   -0 (0%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 12

Author Topic: is marital rape a constitutionally protected right accd. to this language?  (Read 734 times)
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35402
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« on: May 14, 2011, 12:42:55 am »
Ignore

Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [p486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14389


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2011, 02:32:54 am »
Ignore

I'm not sure that existed marital rape existed as a legal concept in Griswold's time (though it of course existed as a reality).  That said, I don't think it does mean that any more than it means that spousal abuse or spousal homicide are protected in the sacred grounds of the marital bedroom.  There's a significant difference between ridiculous and unenforceable victimless crimes like the Connecticut absurd ban on marital couples using contraceptives, or, in a more recent example of the rhetoric of privacy of bedroom relations, Lawrence v. Texas, and what you're talking about.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32028
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2011, 12:34:43 am »
Ignore

Pennsylvania didn't admit the possibility of marital rape until 1982-83.  Ironically, I was reading the Nibelungenlied at the time.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18788
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2011, 09:15:00 am »
Ignore

No, of course not. The privacy in question here is meant to refer to the privacy between two consenting adults - in the case of marital rape the victim would have the lawful right to allow law enforcement into the bedroom to collect evidence and have a medical examiner look at her body to document physical evidence of the abuse.
Logged

Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10471
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 01:29:34 am »
Ignore

Pennsylvania didn't admit the possibility of marital rape until 1982-83.  Ironically, I was reading the Nibelungenlied at the time.

I remember. Then governor, later US Atty Gen. Dick Thornburgh, opposed the reform in that it might prompt "frivolous" rape claims. Roll Eyes
Logged

Your self-serving slacktivism is propelling America to new heights.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines