[gcruse]

"And Georgia struck down the very same law that the United States Supreme Court upheld in Bowers.." The Georgia Supreme Court noted:

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

[nravoter]

To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

And yet, I'd bet that those to whom you were speaking would be among the first to claim they're agaist "big government", excessive regulation, and encroachments on individual liberty.

[Huck]

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty

Is that what we do? Exercise liberty? If it is liberty being exericised, I think it goes without saying that it is thus "freely" exercised. But is that what we do? Is that to be the new euphamism? Is a "lewinsky" now to be an "exercise of liberty"? Or is it a whatchacallit? Reductio ad absurdum?

[Froggie]

Can someone explain how the authorities are going to outlaw prostitution now in light of this ruling which upholds privacy regarding sexual conduct?