[weegee]

Again, not "equal protection", clear, obvious, irrefutible.

But rather than challenge the "unequal protection" (in your mind) of the age of consent laws in a state that already permits homosexual sodomy, they chose to challenge the notion of "equal protection" as it applied to persons who engage in homsexual acts in a state that does not permit acts of homosexual sodomy. And yes I still alledge that these men fabricated the situation under which they were "caught".

I guess that they got better PR pursuing this case in a "bigoted" state that prohibits homosexual sodomy than to pursue overturning cases of statutory rape against adults males who had sex with 16 year old teenaged males.

Each case could be pursued under the "equal protection" c;ause and be just as suitable to overturn the laws (if it is determined that homosexual sex acts are protected constitutionally).

And those who feel that Big Brother has no place in the bedroom would still have a case to embrace (although they might find it distasteful to support lowering the age of consent for adults and minors to engage in sex together).

[lurky]

But rather than challenge the "unequal protection" (in your mind) of the age of consent laws in a state that already permits homosexual sodomy, they chose to challenge the notion of "equal protection" as it applied to persons who engage in homsexual acts in a state that does not permit acts of homosexual sodomy.

Yeah, and?

And yes I still alledge that these men fabricated the situation under which they were "caught".

Fabricated or not, they were still prosecuted and that's why the case is in front of SCOTUS.

I guess that they got better PR pursuing this case in a "bigoted" state that prohibits homosexual sodomy than to pursue overturning cases of statutory rape against adults males who had sex with 16 year old teenaged males.

Maybe. Doesn't de-legitamize their cause, in my eyes.

Each case could be pursued under the "equal protection" c;ause and be just as suitable to overturn the laws (if it is determined that homosexual sex acts are protected constitutionally).

And rightfully so, says I.

And those who feel that Big Brother has no place in the bedroom would still have a case to embrace (although they might find it distasteful to support lowering the age of consent for adults and minors to engage in sex together).

So the thrust of this post is that this case was a calculated strategy, a set-up in a "bigoted" state to open the courts doors to address other issues relating to homosexual issues under the "equal protection" rubric, is that your point?

Whatever, calculated or not, homosexuals are clearly denied "equal protection" under this law and laws governing age of consent. Clear as crystal.

Ok, last response...