[risk]

All Scalia is saying is that the Constitution does not provide a basis for the USSC to REMOVE that decision from the legislative arena as regards sodomy rights.

But those laws by definition would imply enforcement. Enforcement would require the government to be allowed to monitor. Monitoring is certainly a privacy issue.

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) has some very useful linkages to multiple Constitutional amendments regarding privacy. How will the state know, unless it is free to invade one's home?

Note: I would argue that the state has the right to discuss public sexual behavior, and any private sexual behavior with minors. I'd be interested learning how to do that based on the Constitution, but I think it's easy: minors have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness and sexual abuse would clearly interfere.

[eno_]

Minors - more accurately people under the age of consent - are presumed not to be able to consent to sex acts. We are talking about consenting adults.