[toothless]

"In this case, the author has laid out a fairly solid argument in favor of these likely outcomes using similar legal precedents."

You mean like this gem of an argument: "If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do"

lol.

[jwalsh07]

You mean like this gem of an argument: "If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do"

Not de jure but de facto. No reason for states any more. In fact there's no reason for legislatures.

We can simply have a SCOTUS and a tribunal of libertarians, libertines and leftists dictating to ous how we choose to live.

It makes things so much less complicated.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

You erroneously labeled the article as being fallacious, and I called you on it. If you have a problem with the case laid out in the article, address your rebuttal to the case laid out in the article like everybody else is doing. But please, don't embarrass yourself again by illogically suggesting that all likely consequences must be ignored.

The author attempts to build his conclusions based a well established precedent of legal constructionism. This is the valid basis for how judicial decisions are made and how the implications of these decisions are discussed. Reading the actual decisions in the case would be a good place to start. I would suggest that in the future you be more careful in rejecting out of hand concepts you clearly do not yet understand.