that's against the right to be searched. not necessarily privacy as a whole. also, seeing as how it is an amendment, does that mean the people did not have that right until after it was made law? what about the years before?
the supposed right we have to privacy is also what allows a woman to have an abortion in roe v. wade. however, i suspect, some people will state that no woman has the "right" to an abortion. fact is, there are other rights we have as people that just aren't stated blatantly in the constitution.
Yes, it is necessarily privacy as a whole. Surveillance is considered "search" which is not allowed without probable cause. The idea of "reasonable right to privacy" meaning within one's own area not in general view to the public is protected by the idea that "search" includes any form of surveillance.
where in the constitution states that privacy is a right?
That's right, it doesn't. I would argue that the so-called "right to privacy" doesn't exist.
nowhere, yet it's been found in several different cases that we do have a right to expect privacy.
Yeah, because the SCOTUS invented this "right" out of thin-air. Nobody spoke of such a "right" until Griswold v. Connecticut when the Court decided to act as social change agents instead of a judicial body. Even if the 4th Amendment gives a blanket right to privacy (which it doesn't), the 4th Amendment doesn't even apply to the states anyway. In point of fact, so-called "incorporation doctrine" has only been selectively applied and I see no merit for it anyway.
again, you mentioned perez hilton nowhere in your first post. if were gonna argue about who has more grace and class between the two, clearly miss california, no contest.
however, to say that the gay movement as a whole is hypocritical based on perez hilton's comments is stretching it. we cannot base the gay rights movement on perez hilton and similiarly, we cannot assume that everyone who is against "gay rights" is all smiles and sweetness like miss california.
WHAT ABOUT THE SHALLOWNESS OF HAVING A MISS AMERICA CONTEST TO BEGIN WITH, YO? I DON'T SEE A GREAT DIFFERENCE IN NOT AWARDING SOMEONE A SCHOLARSHIP BASED ON HOW THEY LOOK IN A SWIMSUIT AS MUCH DIFFERENT FROM NOT AWARDING SOMEONE A SCHOLARSHIP BASED ON THEIR OPINION OF GAY MARRIAGE. I THINK THE PRIORITIES AND VALUES OF THIS CONTEST WERE ROYALLY SCREWED UP LONG BEFORE ANY MENTION OF GAY MARRIAGE, YO!
IT'S A CONTEST WHERE CONTESTANTS ARE REQUIRED TO FIT A SOCIETAL 'NORM'. IT IS TOTALLY ALL ABOUT WHAT AMERICANS LIKE TO SEE AND HEAR. SURE, SHE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A VIEW THAT DIFFERS FROM THE NORM. JUST LIKE SHE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A BODY THAT DIFFERS FROM SOCIETY'S IDEA OF BEAUTIFUL. BUT THAT ISN'T GOING TO WIN HER THE CONTEST. IT'S ALL ABOUT POPULARITY, YO.
ER... GOSH, WE NEED AN 'EDIT POST' OPTION, YO! I SPY A REDUNDANT AND UNGRAMMATICAL REPETITION OF 'DIFFERENCE/DIFFERENT'. REPLACE 'AS MUCH DIFFERENT FROM' WITH 'AND', YO! OR OMIT THE INITIAL 'A GREAT DIFFERENCE IN'. ;D
First, at least here in the United States the Norm is opposed to gay marriage. Overwhelmingly America still believes in a man and a woman. As to whether a beauty contest is shallow. Duh, I don't think that Christians should participate in such a vain activity since it seems to go against some of the major principals of Christian living But that is my opinion .
IS THAT REALLY THE NORM IN THE US AS A WHOLE, YO? IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE NORM OPINION OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS I SPEAK TO ONLINE ON VARIOUS SITES. ARE THERE SOME HARDCORE RECENT STATISTICS TO WHICH YOU COULD POINT ME?
BUT CLEARLY IT'S THE ACCEPTED NORM OF THOSE JUDGING THE CONTEST, YO, IF IT IS BEING USED AGAINST HER. AND MY POINT ABOUT BEAUTY CONTESTS IS THAT ENTIRELY - IT'S BASED ON TASTE AND VALUES OF THE PEOPLE JUDGING. IT'S A POPULARITY CONTEST, YO. IF A PERSON TAKES PART IN SUCH A THING, THEY NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS POPULAR AND WHAT IS NOT, AND CONFORM TO THAT IF THEY WISH TO WIN.
Even so, having the majority behind you doesn't prove anything with respect to whether same-sex "marriage" is ethical. Even if 99 percent of the people favored it, it's still evil and ought to be opposed.
Then again, the wording was all fucked up on the proposition, and people thought they were voting FOR same-sex marriage as opposed to FOR proposition 8.
The same thing happened in Virginia back in '06 when we had a similar ballot measure in which some people walked out of the polling place voting "no," thinking they were voting *against* same-sex "marriage" when in fact they were voting against an amendment to ban it.
This is why I believe that ballot initiatives and referendum should be kept to a minimum, if not outright abolished. Things really haven't changed in 200+ years. The general public is still uneducated and ill-informed as they ever were. Moreover, I'm looking into the argument that referenda might actually be unconstitutional as it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee that every state has a republican form of government.