[The Red Zone]

Every law embodies a moral statement. I never heard of one that didn't.

The proper question, of course, is what should and shouldn't laws seek to control. We probably do want laws against murder. We probably don't want laws against blasphemy. In the great between, lies the debate.

[WL-law]

The proper question, of course, is what should and shouldn't laws seek to control. We probably do want laws against murder. We probably don't want laws against blasphemy. In the great between, lies the debate.

Your point here misses the real point, which is whether the Constitution PROHIBITS the passage of laws regulating sodomy. By your own logic, the normal legislative process, over time and controlled ultimately by the electorate as a whole, seeks to find that balancing point between individual rights and community interests. 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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Murder takes away the right to life, right to property, etc. of another person. That's the standard. Do your actions take away my rights?