Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1993

Publication Information

84 Soc. Just. Rev. 132 (1993).

Abstract

No need to lament the fate of Mr. Dysart, who does seem to have been a well-intentioned fellow.

The point of relating Dysart's travails is to bring to life, through one illustration, the American legal and constitutional tradition governing sexual immorality, from the founding until the 1960's.

Dysart's lawyers made no constitutional claim. The Supreme Court raised none of its own. The Justices did not even question their prior test for "obscenity." They simply declared that Dysart remained on its safe side, that as a matter of law the notices were not obscene.

I agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion. More important, its basic analytical framework is not only an apt illustration of the tradition. It is the philosophical background necessary to argue against the gay rights revolution in public policy now.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.