![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 2nd, 2015
Mark Twain on social networking
Jul. 2nd, 2015 12:28 amI believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey. I believe that whenever a human being, of even the highest intelligence and culture, delivers an opinion upon a matter apart from his particular and especial line of interest, training and experience, it will always be an opinion so foolish and so valueless, a sort that it can be depended upon to suggest to our Heavenly Father that the human being is another disappointment and that he is no considerable improvement upon the monkey.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography; Mark Twain in Eruption
The Pill and the Same-Sex Marriage
Jul. 2nd, 2015 06:52 pmIt appears that my guess about the connection between the invention of the Pill and the recent SCOTUS decision wrt same-sex marriage is not a hypothesis, but rather a piece of common knowledge, easily available through the wikipedia.
Here's how it all developed chronologically:
1960 - the FDA approves the Pill as a contraceptive that can be prescribed by a medical doctor.
1965 - the SCOTUS establishes the right to privacy (7-2), by striking down a Connecticut law that prohibits any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." (Griswold v. Connecticut). Under the ruling, doctors can prescribe contraceptives to married couples.
1972 - the SCOTUS (6-1) extends the right to use contraceptives to unmarried couples under the Equal Protection Clause (Eisenstadt v. Baird).
1986 - the SCOTUS upholds (5-4) a Georgia law that prohibits oral and anal sex b/w consenting males (Bowers v. Hardwick). The dissenting opinion says that homosexuals have the right to privacy.
2003 - the SCOTUS strikes down (6-3) a Texas law that prohibits certain same-sex acts (Lawrence v. Texas), overturning the 1986 decision. The majority opinion cites the right to privacy established in 1965.
2015 - the SCOTUS legalizes same-sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges) under the Equal Protection Clause.
In short:
- the Pill forces legalization of doctor-prescribed contraceptives and leads to the establishment of the right to privacy for married couples;
- under the Equal Protection Clause, the right is extended to unmarried couples;
- same-sex acts are allowed because of the right to privacy;
- under the Equal Protection Clause, same-sex marriages are legal.
Here's how it all developed chronologically:
1960 - the FDA approves the Pill as a contraceptive that can be prescribed by a medical doctor.
1965 - the SCOTUS establishes the right to privacy (7-2), by striking down a Connecticut law that prohibits any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." (Griswold v. Connecticut). Under the ruling, doctors can prescribe contraceptives to married couples.
1972 - the SCOTUS (6-1) extends the right to use contraceptives to unmarried couples under the Equal Protection Clause (Eisenstadt v. Baird).
1986 - the SCOTUS upholds (5-4) a Georgia law that prohibits oral and anal sex b/w consenting males (Bowers v. Hardwick). The dissenting opinion says that homosexuals have the right to privacy.
2003 - the SCOTUS strikes down (6-3) a Texas law that prohibits certain same-sex acts (Lawrence v. Texas), overturning the 1986 decision. The majority opinion cites the right to privacy established in 1965.
2015 - the SCOTUS legalizes same-sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges) under the Equal Protection Clause.
In short:
- the Pill forces legalization of doctor-prescribed contraceptives and leads to the establishment of the right to privacy for married couples;
- under the Equal Protection Clause, the right is extended to unmarried couples;
- same-sex acts are allowed because of the right to privacy;
- under the Equal Protection Clause, same-sex marriages are legal.
(no subject)
Jul. 2nd, 2015 09:51 pmЕсли сравнить таблетку от головной боли и противозачаточную таблетку, то вылезает два принципиально разных сценария применения: первый всего-навсего меняет собственное состояние, а второй меняет отношения между полами (sexual reproduction strategies), на которые завязаны глубокие (тысячелетние?) культурные процессы и институты, включая религию, брак и семью. Самое смешное, что решения о годности таких совершенно разных по масштабу воздействия препаратов производится по одному и тому же шаблону: FDA approval.