“Lawrence was at the very least an incoherent Supreme Court decision in that it was intentionally vague regarding the reasoning being used.”
Lawrence was incoherent because there is no constitutional basis for the decision. It was just five justices who disagreed with a state law. Ultimately, that was the rationale for the decision.
But when you try to manufacture a credible rationale out of whole cloth, it usually comes out incoherent. When courts abandon principle, there then becomes no way to distinguish Lawrence from a state law prohibiting protest outside abortion clinics, except that Justice Kennedy thinks sodomy is a good thing while exercising your free speech rights outside an abortion clinic is not.
Of course, there is a simple way to distinguish the two situations—the constitution protects free speech but not sodomy. But who cares about that when Justice Kennedy knows better.
And Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence, will likely be the deciding vote when Ted Olson takes the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS.
You’re absolutely right. Activist rulings harm us all no matter which side we’re on. Liberal justices just can’t get it through their thick heads that consistency in the law is usually more important than what is perceived, by them, as social justice. Every time they upend the proverbial apple cart with inconsistent rulings based on personal preferences (with an aim to “fix” society), they actually ruin the very system of laws they are supposed to uphold.
Personally, I think laws against sex toys are ridiculous, but the right to buy or use one is simply not constitutionally protected. When the SCOTUS makes up new law by judicial fiat, they throw a wide range of other law into absolute chaos. If a constitutional law is truly bad, the PEOPLE will eventually overturn it. We don’t need judges to do our job for us.