[breakem]

Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it.

What I find amazing is how you characterize my comment, but find it perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate this behavior. What country are you posting from?

[brownie]

"Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it."

-- I don't believe the Constitution provides a "right" to sexual relations with someone of the same gender. Simply because a law may be unjust, unfair, or unwise does not make it unconstitutional.

[Jhoffa_]

Contrary to your believe, if a law restricts rights which the government does not have the power to restrict, the court is the last resort of individuals to have the law tossed. If that's activism, then so be it.

No. The court isn't there to write law, you're completely incorrect.

They may rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the minute they engage in "Judicial Activism" they deviate from the law as written. That's not their job and it's how we got an all powerful Federal Government to begin with.

As I said, you need to re-think this. Because those same "judicial activists" you're cheering today will be goring your ox tomorrow.

What I find amazing is how you characterize my comment, but find it perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate this behavior. What country are you posting from?

I am posting from the United States, where I live. Where are you posting from?

You claim that local government cannot regulate within the confines of a person's home? What gave you that impression?

And don't tell me it's the vagaries of the ninth.