[moneyrunner]

The brief was an interesting read. The issue that was discussed was not whether homosexuality should or should not be outlawed. The issue is whether the courts have the right to outlaw it via a novel interpretation of the Constitution.

The brief makes the point that anti-sodomy statutes have existed since before the founding of the US and have co-existed with the Constitution as state law (in many states) ever since.

For the Supreme Court to overturn these statutes in light of increased public acceptance of homosexuality is to confirm the court’s role as a legislative rather than judicial body.

The brief makes clear that it is perfectly constitutionally permissible for state legislatures to change the laws respecting homosexual conduct. It is not permissible for the court to do so.

[colorado tanker]

The brief makes clear that it is perfectly constitutionally permissible for state legislatures to change the laws respecting homosexual conduct. It is not permissible for the court to do so.

Exactamundo! This is a policy issue which under the 10th Amendment is left to the state legislatures. The brief is right on target, but since the Supreme Court long ago forgot about the 10th Amendment . . .