Replies

Your logic is at least working. I disagree with you though. Banning anal sex or oral sex for people of the same gender while not banning it for a man and a woman is not equal protection under the law. I can see your logic, and I hope the lawyers for Texas try to use it before the Supreme Court. We'll see how well that works.

I just took a quick look at the Bowers case, and it does not seem to address the equal protection issue of 14th Amendment, only the DPC of the 14th. I do think that my logic (for once) holds on the equal protection issue. It is akin (sort of) to parking regulations. You can park your car (body part) here (body orifice) legally, but if you park it (body part) THERE (body orifice) it is illegal, and you are subject to a fine or other punishment. Parking laws apply to all persons, just as the sodomy law in Virginia applies to all persons. Now, if the argument was that deviate sexual intercourse by a male with another male was expressly prohibited, the argument would be different. I would still side with the opinion of the Court in the Bowers case though, holding that there is no constitutional right to homosexual intercourse.