I don't particularly care why the court made this decision. I am not a fan of most court decisions. This one may be correct for all the wrong reasons.
My point is only this, consensual sex between adults in private is not a legitimate government function. The proper role of Government in a free society is to defend rights. Period.
I'm not interested in violent force based theocracies.
Bad Supreme Court decisions set bad precedent. That they can "pick and choose" what can be done in privacy means that the privacy argument won't hold for every case.
If the court had chosen to be consistent in it's decision I would not be hollering about this. This WAS a set aside for the homosexual lobby and no other privacy rights groups get a benifit from the decision. Ergo your rights as a citizen are still limited even for activities you commit in private with consent from other adults.
Meanwhile, they claimed that this would not unleash a challenge to society's prohibitions on same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, age of consent laws for sex acts between adults and minors over the age of consent (we were told that this was strictly the actions of consenting ADULTS and some states did set different ages for conventional heterosexual pairings and atypical homosexual pairings).
We were also told that this would not legalize prostitution and that seems to be the only provision of their claims that is holding.
Some might bring up commerce as a reason for the government to be involved but is the government involved in approving who you employ as a babysitter (child care provider)? There are violations of child labor laws, income tax laws, let alone no background checks or proficiency test. I'm am not pushing for the prohibition of baby sitters (and am not arguing for the legalization of prostitution for any other reason but consistency in the decision; I wouldn't use a prostitute).