ABSTRACT
This chapter considers constitutional interpretation not only by the US Supreme Court, but also by the Supreme Court of a state particularly given to neutralist tendencies in this realm of policy. Considering the strain to which jurists must often put themselves to give their principles constitutional coloration, this is surprising; nonetheless it is a fact. For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental purpose. How could true tolerance be unconstitutional? If anything the Constitution seems pro-tolerance, because of its meticulous guarantees of rights and the restrictions on means of regulation that these rights imply. In fact, the protection of privacy in this sense is a counsel of true tolerance. Guaranteeing a right of privacy in this sense furthers a number of important goods including the intimacy of personal relationships.
