A Constitutional Right to Pry?

In order to protect your right to privacy, the government has a few questions about your sex life that you must answer.

The right to privacy, famously located in the emanations and penumbra of the Constitution, has been used by courts and legislatures to justify a lot of things, some of them having little or nothing to do with privacy.

The California courts, for example, use the right to privacy to establish your inalienable right to marry whomever you choose. In Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n, the court said:

[T]he right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the right to privacy in this case as the right to marry.

Of course, the same-sex marriage movement is not about private acts, but public ones. Marriage concerns more than intimate associations behind closed doors. In a marriage, you make your private choices public, and the state is required to deal with your private choices and provide public benefits.

The gay-rights movement now insists not that you respect the privacy of homosexuals, but that you accord them dignity and smile politely while they tell you about their intimate activities.

So it is not difficult to contemplate how a right to privacy could eventually be transformed into a right to pry.

Last year, the [Brighton & Hove] council introduced new rules to comply with the Equality Act 2006 and Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

As part of the changes, it issued a questionnaire to the Pilgrim Home in Egremont Place, Brighton, where 39 Christians aged over 80 live.

When residents were asked to fill in a form stating if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or ‘unsure’, they refused.

Brighton & Hove Council criticised the home’s response and said because it was based on Christianity, gay people might be deterred from applying for a place.

The council then announced it was stopping its £13,000 grant because there had been ‘limited progress’ in making the home accessible to the homosexual community.

Put simply, the home needs evidence of homosexual activity in order to keep its funding. No doubt that activity must also be quantified and documented for everyone to enjoy his right to privacy.