The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, earlier upheld the state’s same-sex sodomy prohibition under the state and federal constitutions. The court’s majority disagreed with a decision by its three-judge panel, which had found that the law violated the rights of the two men arrested at home for private, consensual sex.I'm going to say it for the last time.The three-judge panel had held that the “Homosexual Conduct” law violated the mens’ right to equal protection under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment by criminalizing conduct between same-sex partners but leaving the identical conduct legal for different-sex couples. On rehearing, the full court held that the law does not violate the right to equal treatment under the laws or to privacy from government prying into intimate adult conduct.
In a strong dissent from the en banc decision, Justice John Anderson said that the “Homosexual Conduct” law’s prohibition on sodomy for same-sex couples “cannot... be explained by anything but animus toward the persons it affects” - which is not a legitimate motive for government discrimination against one group of people.
I do not see anything unconstitutional in banning sodomy across the board, at the state level or county level.
Nevertheless, banning sodomy between woman and woman, or man and man, wil not survive constitutional scrutiny.
My personal views on whether cunnilingus is a sin or unnatural or acceptable will have little to do with the Supreme Court's decision.
But I see no problem whatsoever with ratifying male-female sex as the norm and discouraging homosexual sex as a threat to the social order.
Your racial/gender analogy fails because we do have laws that pertain only to one sex because of biological reality. Equal protection survives only as far as the male and female body are reasonably equal. There you have it. Two hundred and fifty posts and no one's layed a glove on me.
Probably because social conservatism is actually more logical than libertarianism, by far.