and griswold was a revolutionary decision. because it recognized for the first time explicitly that the right of individuals to control decisions about reproduction was a fundamental right under the constitution that the state had to respect must await had respect with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. freedom from searches and seizures and so on.and it was griswold laid the foundation later ultimately roe versus wade. and in that progression there was a case -- decided seven years later in which the question was whether a state could prohibit unmarried people from having access to contraception. and the court held that those laws were also unconstitutional. that the state could not prohibit unmarried people from having access to contraception. without reproductive judgments about whether to bear a child it was so fundamental that the state cannot interfere in that matter. and this was the next major step two roe v wade. >> and mike have heard this not to go on television and the senate judiciary committee. when the s

everywhere in the united states they were repealed or an ended n griswold versus connecticut the court considered whether they can be applied and they held that such for constitutional and the right to make decisions for themselves that matter as fundamental couldn't be interfered with by the state without the argument that could be fourth for contraception. it was a revolutionary decision because it recognized for the first time that the right of individuals to control decisions like reproduction was a right under the constitution that states had to be spent much the way they respect freedom off speech and religion, churches and seizures and so on and it was griswold on the foundation of the way. the question was whether the state could prohibit people fror having access to contraception and the walls were also unconstitutional and statesslaww could prohibit people from having access to contraceptionao but again the freedom to make decisions about reproductive judgments and about whether to have a child or so fundamental a state could not interfere in th matter. >> what we are talking

the court found in griswold versus connecticut a right to marital sexual privacy in the constitution. they extend the privacy right to singles. and roe v. wade in 1973 to a pregnant woman's limited right to obtain an abortion. the stories are well known. what i have found especially interesting are the ways that even as a constitutional right to sexual privacy was developed around issues of women's reproductive rights in the 1960's and 1970's, many people were expressing a decline in the experience of sexual privacy. frank, an award-winning journalist published in 1970 article on this issue in a popular magazine look. what is happening to sexual privacy? he asked. is it dying in a world where public sex pops up everywhere? he was far from alone in couldting that public sex violate sexual privacy. in the 1960's and 1970's, many individual citizens, and some aclu leaders try to establish a version of sexual privacy that would recognize unwanted exposure to sexual expression, whether in public or private as a violation of sexual privacy. junk mail raise these issues in the 1960's and 197

the court found in griswold , 1965, annecticut right to marital sexual privacy in the constitution. a few years later it extended that privacy right to singles in eisenstadt versus baird 1972. and in roe v. wade, 1973, 2 that -- to a pregnant woman's limited right to obtain an abortion. these stories are well known. what i have found interesting are the ways that even as a constitutional right to sexual privacy was developed around issues of women's -- reproductive rights in the 1960's and 70's, many people were expressing a decline in their experience of sexual privacy. frank trivets, an award winning journalist published in 1970 article on this issue in the popular magazine, "look." what's happening to sexual privacy, he asked. is it dying, he wondered, in a world where quote, public sex pops up everywhere. cricket was far from alone in suggesting that public sex could violate sexual privacy. in the 1960's and 1970's, many individual citizens, and even for a time some aclu leaders tried to establish a version of , sexual the that would recognize unwanted exposure to sexual express

so i just want to do a bunch of clark griswold road trips, so we went and got a van, you know, they makehese things in indiana. like an old conversion van, and got a conversion van. we went to badlands, mount rushmore, you do, colorado, a bunch state parks. i just wanted to do those every summer and the think the house last time we did that was in 2014. the thing sits in the street like that. i haven't driven to think in the year and a half. they don't let you drive in this job. so those family road trips i can do that anymore. that's one of the drags that comes with this job. >> host: you are known for texting your members. i understand your tax have a new fun addition. >> guest: i learned this. what are these things called? gifs? these things are awesome. my deal is, i got one was stiffler doing yes, know what you mean? it's an old school. what i do is i send, he has a big mullet in you. i send gifs to people really don't expect it from you. i am one with britney spears doing this, captain obvious. these things are pretty damn funny i think. [laughing] i send this to people who really

talking about the examples we used, but -- and to develop a more also drawing on privacy cases from griswold. to develop a more robust interpretation of the scope of liberty protected by the due -- ofs clause of the and the constitution. as he later put it, citing the 10th circuit, equality has always meant the same thing. we have come to recognize the humanity and full citizenship of people disqualified. it is a deeply historical analysis. history also played a key role in other cases, but not any way i had anticipated. in the past, the court had said the laws that single out a particular group or differential for differential treatment should receive heightened scrutiny if that group had historically been subjected to a history of discrimination. they had not had the political power needed to fight it. that history makes singling out that group suspect as the courts put it. that means the state has to provide more evidence for those laws. i fought the courts, and the lawyers hoped the court would draw on the history of anti-gay discrimination as we outlined in the brief to argue that laws