Court Opinion

ID: 9850712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:01:52.739678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.215879
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion to the extent that it concludes that there is no unconstitutional abridgement of appellant’s right of privacy as a result of the state’s proscription of certain private sexual conduct. As the United States Supreme Court has held, the right of privacy does not insulate “any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults . . . from state proscription . . . .” Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 191 (106 SC 2841, 92 LE2d 140) (1986). Neither is there any violation of a state constitutional right because “[o]ur constitution does not deny the legislative branch the right to prohibit such conduct.” Christensen v. State, 266 Ga. 474, 476 (2) (a) (468 SE2d 188) (1996).