norml21 - Page 42

 The standard to be used in testing the constitution-
 ality of a statute infringing on the right of privacy
 should depend on the precise aspect of privacy invaded_
 Where the aspect of privacy asserted is analogous to
 the right of property or contract, a lesser standard
 similar to the rationality test of substantive due
 process should suffice. But where, as here, the aspect
 of privacy involved is a constituent element in the
 definition of freedoms only the more stringent
 compelling interest-narrow specificity standard will
 suffice.
 441 P.2d at 340.
 The Justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court interpreted both
 the legislative history and Justice Goldberg's soncurrence in
 Griswol__d as intending the Ninth Amendment to be a relevant source
 of unenumerated rights° The Justices clearly expressed that
 which they were in fact accomplishing8 incorporation of the
 rights protected by the Ninth Amendment directly into the due
 process clause of the Fourteenth, rendering the protective
 features of the Ninth applicable to state actions
 More recently_ in Post vo State, 715 P.2d 1105 (Oklo Cro
 Appo 1986), certo denied_ 479 U.So 890 (1986)_ the Oklahoma Court
 of Criminal Appeals held that a statute prohibiting "Crimes
 Against Nature, '_ as applied to consensual sexual activity between
 adults, violated the constitutional right to privacy. Id. at
 Ii09_ The court explicitly relied, in parts on Justice
 Goldberg's concurrence in _risEwoid emphasizing the relevance of
 42