[colorado tanker]

I have no "recent" discovery of gay rights or anything else. I have beleieved in the human right to sexual activity for over 35 years. You made up an argument and you have your facts wrong.

If the Supremes find such a "right" this term they will have to overrule existing case law and yes, this right will be brand spanking new. I'm not the one with facts wrong. Nothing in the Constitution grants a "human right to sexual activity," nor is there any Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution to grant such a right.

It is crystal clear the people who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution thought there was no such right because they saw no Constitutional problem with sodomy laws. You have believed in this "right" for over 35 years. So is that when the Constitution was amended to add this new right, in 1968?

[tdadams]

Nothing in the Constitution grants a "human right to sexual activity," nor is there any Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution to grant such a right.

You think our rights are a grant from the Constitution or the Supreme Court??? I think we've found the source of confusion.

[breakem]

re 367 You said I was recent to "gay rights" instead of saying you were wrong you compared my date with the date the constitution was in effect. Switch and bait is a sign of failure to admit you guessed wrong.

Of course nothing in the constitution lists a seual right or the right to walk outside or the right to wear a white t-shirt vs a blue t-shirt or the right to cook a hamburger or to blow you nose. You are not following NO ONE EXCEPT A FEW IGNORANT SOULS SAYS THE CONSTITUTION LISTS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS. If you want to surrender rights to the government that aren't listed in the constitution go ahead. Most of us will not be joining you.