15. One rational inference one can draw from the following excerpt from Griswold v. Connecticut is:

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

1. certain relationships are so personal and private that the idea of government regulations applying to them is repulsive to notions of privacy.
2. when the government has the purpose of controlling activities that occur within the zone of privacy by way of regulating those activities, the regulations sweep too broadly.
3. when state regulations pertain to certain relationships that lie

within the zone of privacy, the risk of the state is crossing lines of privacy increases.

4. All of the above