So, I take it that you support the state when it oulaws smoking in parks and in one's own home if there are children present. I further understand that you would support the state if it began to require certain height and weight standards for citizens because the health of the citizens also contributes to stable relationships and healthy environments within which to raise children.
The state has no business telling adults whom they can live with. None whatsoever. Ever.
And no, I'm not "shacking up" with anyone.
Actually, when the laws start coming down to regulate diet and smoking, the liberal judges will uphold them. You see, liberals don't think there's a "compelling state interest" in prohibiting fornication, but they'll agree that there is such an interest in banning smoking or bad eating habits.
Liberal judges can turn on a dime on these things, and always do. They ban racial discrimination, but uphold affirmative action, which is "politically correct" discrimination. They banned assigning kids to schools based on race in Brown, but then said kids have to be assigned to schools based on race in their busing decisions. Last year, Judge Souter explained to us why it's okay for the Ten Commandments to be posted in the U.S. Supreme Court building but not okay in a county courthouse.
There's no rhyme or reason to these rulings. They're simply the personal opinion of liberal judges. "Compelling State Interest" is simply another way of saying "An interest liberals agree with".
Because we've let judicial activism get out of hand, we now live in a world where we simply defer to judges. President Bush signed McCain-Feingold because he wanted the judges to decide it, and they couldn't until it became law. Governor Arnold has been quoted as saying he thinks the courts should decide the gay "marriage" issue. But when the New York court, in a rare example of restraint, said it was up to the legislature to define marriage, many people acted like the court had "failed". We're so accustomed now to being dictated to by judges that we're sort of stunned when they don't do it.
The best way to stop laws such as those you fear is for the people to be non-apathetic and independent. But judicial activism promotes opposite values. Someday, we'll probably see a bill to regulate our diet introduced in some legislature. The people won't pay much attention to it. They're used to the courts passing our laws, not the legislature. So the bill will pass. The Republican governor will sign it, so that the courts can have their say in the matter. Of course, he'll assure his more conservative backers that surely the court will strike the law down, just as they did with the laws against sodomy and fornication. Ah, but those were laws liberals didn't like. There was no "compelling" interest for those laws. But a law regulating diet? Suffice it to say, it'll be McCain-Feingold all over again.