is that the Griswold decision was the first emergence of a general right of privacy in the interpretation of the Constitution. While the 4th Amendment is fairly clear about the right to have one's home, papers, etc. secure from warrantless searches, there is clearly not a right to do each and every thing one desires within the privacy of one's home. Even the language of the Griswold decision mentions "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, a very nebulous and suspicious concept indeed for moralizers.
Of course, the question arises: Where does this privacy begin, and government rights end? With no clear guidance from the Founders on this subject, other than the way the Crown treated colonial Americans and their reactions to it, it could evolve into anything. Indeed, the right to contraception without interference from the state has come to mean the right to abortion, and the right to other forms of non-procreative sexual behavior. It may someday be interpreted to protect the right to incest and polygamy, and that's why Santorum cites those examples.
His contention is that rights not spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal Government belong either to the states, or to the people. As time has gone on, that has meant to the people, but clearly at the time of original ratification of the Constitition, the states retained a great deal of rights over their citizens. He'd clearly like to go back to those days.
I'm not saying I agree with that, but I can at least articulate the opposing opinion well enough to be able to have a discussion with the other side about it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I guess it's the sweater vests...
