Replies

If court rules the sodomy law is unconstituional because it involves consensual sex on private property, how can a bigamy or adultery or incest law be constitutional?

Consensual sex between two unmarried adults violates no one else's rights, unlike bigamy and adultery, both of which violate the very public institution of marriage.

And bigamy and adultery are breach of the legal contract of marriage.
Incest laws were originally put in to keep the couple from having genetically defective kids, not for some grand moral posture. Many royal families routinely married siblings and close cousins and ended up with messed up offspring.
And pedophilia and bestiality are off-limits because there can be no proper consent to the act by a child or an animal.

None of these issues apply to consenting adult gays in the privacy of their own homes. They are consenting, non-contracted, and non-reproductive.

Santorums analogy, even when examined from a legal perspective and eliminating the moral view (difficult around here) was a bad one.

LQ

Consensual sex between two unmarried adults violates no one else's rights, unlike bigamy and adultery, both of which violate the very public institution of marriage.

Well,how do you feel about polygamy or incest then? You think a divorced fellow should be allowed to marry his daughter? The age of consent is 14 in Hawaii.

Something else. My own view is pretty flexible concerning sodomy laws. I believe, however, it is destructive and disgraceful for the Supreme Court to consider overturning long-standing state laws and practices on the basis of political fashion and a whimsical reading of the Constitution.

And I do see a reason for these laws apart from imposing subjective morality on someone who may not agree with it.

If you have a couple of aging homosexuals living together and leaving everybody else alone, I really don't think anybody -- including the law -- should bother them. On the other hand, if they are having a orgy every other weekend featuring anonymous sex they may just be creating a wee bit of a health hazard -- especially if some of the participants go home to their unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. So much for the "gay gene."

And I think a law might be a tool for dissauding an authority figure -- priest, college professor, employer -- from taking home an 18-year-old with a poor self-image and with help from drink and drugs convincing him he really doesn't like girls.

Regardless, the pros and cons should be considered by an elected, changeable legislature, not by unelected, appointed-for-life judges.