So what is the problem ? Can't you let the legislative process take its course ?
The real question: is there a government interest in a person's non-coercive sexual practices.
No, The real question is which government and which body within that gov't has the right to define what is the government interest and what is not.
non-coercive sexual practices
Surely your not sugesting that all non-coercive sexual practices should be beyond the reach of any restrictions are you ?
Thus the right to privacy.
Precisely the issue. Is there such a thing as the right to privacy that trumps all states interest. Some scholars believe as Santorum pointed out, that such a right will begin the slippery slope to making incest among other things lawful.
Not just by law. But now by custom. Thus becoming a judicial issue.
The question I had for you was if the majority of people believe as you say, why force the courts to do mental gymnastics to accomplish this goal and why not be satisfied that the legislators will accomplish it. It seems to me your premise that everybody doesn't want these laws is flawed or you don't get the issue of the slipper slope or the issue of states rights.
It is now conservative to be against laws regulating sexual behavior.
Who says ?
Santorum is the radical.
He is a radical but you have no idea what the word really means. radical (ME. < LL. radicalis < L. radix, a ROOT). -adj. (1a) of or from the roots; going to the foundation or source of something [as in a radical principle].