If 2 men could have sodomy but a man and a woman couldn't or 2 women couldn't then there would be unequal protection. It doesn't matter how many times you try to spin the argument another way (cowboys and frogs, mormons and baptists, hedgehodges and foxes...) this is the crux.
Homosexual is not a "classification" of person anymore than horsemeat eating is. You believe that crime is somehow sacred and protected by the constitution.
Homosexuals are entitled to think homosexual thoughts and write homosexual books but when words turn to deeds the law is violated.
Murder and cannibalism is also illegal but the Hannibal Lector books became best sellers.
That's the argument in a nutshell.. For all the complaining over this, it boils down to homosexuals wanting the Federal Government to give them "special" right's because of their sexual behavior.
Texas has said no, Vermont has said yes.. Rather than try to presuade the people to Texas through the democratic process, they want the SC to create a one size fits all law and then impose it on everyone, everywhere by force.
That's not Constitutional and it's not proper.
If that's the case, then why does Texas draw a distinction between a homosexual person, and a heterosexual one?
They do it by creating a law that seeks to ban "deviant sexual intercourse" for homosexuals, and not for heterosexuals.
So, it's either a classification, and laws are enacted criminalzing "deviant sexual intercourse" strictly between homosexuals (that infamous non-existent classification), or it's not, and laws are enacted that make "deviant sexual intercourse" forbidden for all citizens.
You can't have both.