Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsb!bl
From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women,net.motss
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <3631@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Aug-86 17:45:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.3631
Posted: Mon Aug  4 17:45:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Aug-86 01:47:47 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2146@hammer.UUCP> <3282@jhunix.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 13
Summary: Oh, now I see!
Xref: mnetor net.legal:2973 net.singles:8973 net.social:782 net.women:5018 net.motss:2103

In article <3282@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_aprm@jhunix.UUCP (Paul R Markowitz) writes:
> In article <12507@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes:
...
> The charges against
> them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police
> station.... They took the case to court anyway.  The basis for the swing
> vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the 
> law has never been and will never be prosecuted.

Thank you, now I understand.  Because the law was not prosecuted the 
S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional.  If the law had been prosecuted
then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional.  Makes perfect sense,
thanks for clearing it up.