Sex and the Constitution

Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century

De: Geoffrey R. Stone

Narrado por: William Dufris

Renowned constitutional scholar Geoffrey R. Stone traces the evolution of legal and moral codes that have attempted to legislate sexual behavior from the ancient world to America's earliest days to today's fractious political climate. Stone crafts a remarkable, even thrilling narrative in which he shows how agitators, moralists, legislators, and especially the justices of the Supreme Court have historically navigated issues as explosive and divisive as abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and contraception. Overturning a raft of contemporary shibboleths, Stone reveals that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no laws against obscenity and no laws against abortion before the midpoint of pregnancy. A pageant of historical characters - including Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Anthony Comstock, Margaret Sanger, J. Edgar Hoover, Phyllis Schlafly, and Justice Anthony Kennedy - enlivens this landmark work, which dramatically reveals how our laws about sex, religion, and morality reflect the paradoxes and cultural schisms that have cleaved our nation from its founding.

©2017 Geoffrey R. Stone (P)2017 Tantor

Great and informative book.

This is a great book. The subject matter, sex, kept my interest in an otherwise dry topic (the constitution of the USA). The book helped me to learn about how the constitution was formed, how the supreme court works and how religion (mostly Christianity) has forced society to view sex for so long. I highly recommend it.

Divisive Issues

This is a great presentation of how we got to where we are. Loved the detail of cases, with positions of judges, role of and impact on federal and state governments. Full of passions and emotional scars.

Loved It

Great book!!! Although it was long, I didn't want it to stop towards the end.

Written with a Clear Agenda

Stone clearly crafts a story that is heavily biased. He attempts to ingratiate himself with the reader through arrogance of perceived authority. He side steps may of the most obvious contentions in his argument purporting that the justice system fails and is failing to support and defend the constitution. The system is broken. He argues against this point quite blind to the context required for a reasonable and balanced approach.

Overall, it was fun to mentally challenge his claims and affirmations, but misguided in terms of balance or conclusion.