So you support the majority in Lawrence v Texas even though they ignored stare decisis and the 10th Amendment?
While I just said that my reading of Lawrence, particularly the wording, "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons." seems to go along with the idea of gay marriage, yes, I figured that the Bowers decision of 1986 might indeed fall some day, and we got to that day last year.
As for stare decisis, when a court wants to keep something the same, it argues stare decisis, when it wants to do something different, it says that stare decisis did not apply in this case. Again, language from Lawrence,"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command." To a judge, especially a high court justice, words mean whatever they want them to mean on a given day. I guess the same is true of the 10th Amendment.
I hope for the day when stare decisis is set aside to reverse Roe vs. Wade, don't you?