Replies

Everybody is saying Lawrence is a privacy case. It is not. Is a case about a new right called the right to the liberty of the fundmental expression of one's essential humanity, which in the case at hand was applied to sodomy when done privately, is unconstitutionally denied. The evil is not in the invasion of one's privacy, but in the denial of the liberty of one class of individuals to express their essential humanity via their chosen form of intimate relationship conducted in a decorous and private way.

That is why this precedent could well be expanded to gay marriage via this newly invented, or at least now turbo-charged, constitutional right. Marriage after all has nothing to do about privacy (indeed marriage to the contrary is all about the expression of one's intimate relationship in the public square). But many argue that the proscription of gay marriage does have everything to do with the with the arbitrary and cruel denial of liberty to folks who are hard wired to be gay, to express their essential humanity via having their intimate relationship sealed through the bond of marriage. Andrew Sullivan had described the issue thusly in almost exactly those words.

Indeed, Kennedy's prose in Lawrence, and Sullivan's, so synchronously echo each other, that it is almost akin to a veritable symphonic score, where the various prose lines seamlessly interweave with each other, such that the echoes become a melodic cornucopia, with the whole being so much more than the sum of its parts.

I hope that helps.

Maybe I should submit an essay to the New York Times on it or something.

Everybody is saying Lawrence is a privacy case. It is not. Is a case about a new right called the right to the liberty of the fundmental expression of one's essential humanity, which in the case at hand was applied to sodomy when done privately, is unconstitutionally denied. The evil is not in the invasion of one's privacy, but in the denial of the liberty of one class of individuals to express their essential humanity via their chosen form of intimate relationship conducted in a decorous and private way.

And what are the constraints upon the expression of one's essential humanity? Are there any?
What are the categories of essential humanity?
Since this is not about privacy, how can expressions of one's essential humanity be limited to private and decorous acts? Wouldn't that intrude on the rights of sexual exhibitionists?

I can see what you're saying, but I disagree with your analysis and I disagree with your conclusions as to where this will take us.

I'm fairly certain the USSC justices pondered all these questions and have given some forethought as to how they should be handled if the case ever becomes ripe.