IIRC, Lawrence v. Texas was decided as a privacy issue, not as an endorsement of sodomy.
“IIRC, Lawrence v. Texas was decided as a privacy issue, not as an endorsement of sodomy.”
“Privacy” in Lawrence v. Texas was the blah blah the court used to rationalize it’s decision. The holding was that sodomy was a protected right under the federal constitution and that states had no power to make it illegal.
I don’t care if it was an endorsement, a celebration, or an acceptance. It turned the 10th amendement on its head by assuming federal power over matters that were unambiguously delegated to the States in the Constitution.
The privacy concept itself has no meaning other than what five supreme court justices think happens to be a good idea. Why doesn’t John Wayne Gacy have the right to kill people in the privacy of his home? Because the supremes think that’s a bad idea. Why is abortion more widespread and protected in the US than almost any other nation? Because the supremes think having freely available abortion is a dandy idea.
Whatever they think is a good moral decision, they call it privacy and shove it down our throats. Calling it “privacy” is just a label that messages better than “the constitutional right of sodomy.”