[MHGinTN]

Why regulate sodomy if you have no intention of enforcing laws against it? sinkspur You, of all the posters at FR, ought to know the best answer for that; if a behvaior is proscribed in law, any legal case that has the additional link to the proscribed behavior can be brought to bear on the case at hand ... such as 'consenting adults', one (or both) of whom has AIDs but doesn't tell his partners and is brought to court under suit, his illicit behavior is first breaking the law proscribing sodomy, or bigamy, or adultery, thus the law is more able to deter such bevahiors the society chooses to proscribe. Defend this effort to corrode yet another right the states have in proscribing behaviors, but the realities of legal prosecutions doesn't mean there have to be 'bedroom cops' in order for the proscriptions to be useful. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this omission in reasoning this out properly. I stand 110% behind Santorum's assertions and his perspective designed to defend the institutions of our society rather than carve out further corrosions of the society, for special interest groups.

[sinkspur]

I stand 110% behind Santorum's assertions and his perspective designed to defend the institutions of our society rather than carve out further corrosions of the society, for special interest groups.

States and state courts have been rolling back restrictions on sodomy for the last 20 years. Apparently the legislatures don't see the stricture or urgency that you do in having a law on the books that is not enforced.

If you're in favor of states retaining the right to proscribe sodomy, I suppose you're also in favor of the states simply ignoring the enforcement of the law.

I just don't see how a law that is not enforced is in anyway effective. If I know the local sheriff will let me go 20 miles over the speed limit, I will, more often than not, go 20 miles over the speed limit.