Steve,

Even you have to admit, though: the Constitutional reasoning is this case was crap. There is no 'right to sodomy' in the Constitution.

I've already admitted that. I went on the record back in April. While I have no problem with consensual homosexual sex, I do have a problem with legislation coming from the judiciary. I even quite plainly stated that "if you hold the position that our moral views have changed [ie: sodomy should be legal], then it needs to be settled at the ballot box, and not in the courts, because courts cannot dictate morality."

SCOTUS always strikes me the wrong way. The acronym, that is. My mind's eye always sees it as scrotus....

I don't believe that the government is in any position to legislate the consentual behavior of adults. I don't believe they should.

This post and the one above....very well done, Steve.

That is a valid point, Goddess. Taking it a step further, the SCOTUS should legislate at all.

Steve,

Distinction noted. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court still recognized the right of the state to prohibit prostitution, which is entirely inconsistent with their legal reasoning, but not left-wing ideology. You see, the social left demands that private social behavior not be regulated, while the economic left demands that economic behavior be heavily regulated.

It might be true that it is good public policy to regulate prostitution and not regulate homosexual sodomy, but there is no logical or legal reasoning capable of drawing such a distinction as far as the Court is concerned. The Supreme Court has become both a joke and a dire threat to the democratic process.