Who says they are? I think this makes the third time now that I've stated that the law is against a behavior/activity, not people.
"And where does it stand today?"
AFAIK, the citizens of the State of Texas are still against it.
Is that clear enough for you?"
Nope. What you've described is exacly the situation as it exists today. I want to know why, if there is a constitutional right to privacy -- as you say there is -- it doesn't extend to the private use of drugs, prostitution or gambling in the home, or even the possession (not use) of drugs in the car.
Look. Forget it. You can't answer that because there IS no constitutional right to privacy. If there was, these activities would be covered. They'd have to be.
"BTW, have you devised that new law yet?"
Yeah. I already told you. I'd simply take the existing state laws against pedophilia or bestiality or necrophilia or incest and modify them by substituting "homosexual sodomy" in the appropriate areas.
Those laws were good in all the states that had them -- it wasn't until the federal courts got involved that they were overturned. But I thought you didn't want the federal government involved in these types of decisions. I thought you wanted these issues decided by each state. Am I wrong?
Or are you kind of flexible when it comes to constitutional issues -- whichever way you get the most favorable treatment, that's the way you go?
Again, I'll type very slowly. If a particular behavior or activity is barred by one group but not another then you have a constitutional issue. If the activity happens to be anal sex, and it is prohibited for homosexual males, but not for heterosexuals, you have unequal application of the law. In any case, any such prohibitions would violate privacy and due process. I know you neither understand nor approve of constitutional rights, but I'm afraid they are a factor in these discussions.
AFAIK, the citizens of the State of Texas are still against it.
Well, there's a few folks in my state that still believe in the Confederacy. But both are living in a dream world that will never return.
I want to know why, if there is a constitutional right to privacy -- as you say there is -- it doesn't extend to the private use of drugs, prostitution or gambling in the home, or even the possession (not use) of drugs in the car.
There is until someone has probable cause to break that privacy barrier. They protect you, not necessarily the activities. The activities could still be illegal, but you are protected until a warrant breaks into that protection.
I thought you wanted these issues decided by each state. Am I wrong?
Yes. You are also not prepared for any kind of discussion of the Constitution. Nor have you any concept of rights.
You have a good day.