On this topic, sodomy laws have been gradually disappearing as well. Most states have dumped them entirely.
That is why I was surprised to see the reaction to this decision. I have come to the conclusion that if the case had not involved gays, the decision would never have drawn this criticism and would have been hailed as a win for getting government out of the bedroom.
But, (bad choice of word) I see the contrary here with people advocating government intrusion into people private sexual activity even though not criminal in any way.
I see very few people affected by this ruling except for the two gays who got off. The gay community should have little to boast about, since states rarely ever enforce these laws in this way. They used sodomy largely in combination with other criminal charges regarding rape and non-consensual sex.
I believe the straight and normal people should be happy that the court struck down a intrusive and purposeless law, socially acceptable or not.
I am and remain perplexed.
The reason the homosexual lobby is celebrating this ruling is not, as you indicated, that they no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for their private behavior. You see, the Left has always had its eye on the future, and has been very patient about it. They know that this ruling is going to be a wedge they can use to promote their agenda further, mostly by attacking various forms of "discrimination" that keep them from pushing themselves on the public square.
The reason for my reaction and others is the possibility for future damage this decision poses. Like Justice Thomas, I think the Texas law was stupid and I don't mourn its passing.
The problem is the reasoning of the decision directly suggests that any state legislation regarding sexual morality is unconstitutional and implies that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman would also be unconstitutional.
The problem is substantive due process. When a court finds a substantive "liberty" interest, as distinct from procedural due process guaranteeing procedural rights before one may be deprived of liberty, the door is opened for unlimited Supreme Court legislating. Why? Because there is no definition of "liberty" in the Constitution, so it means what five Justices say it means. It is almost an unlimited mandate to strike down legislation the Supremes don't like.
This was the fear with Roe v. Wade, another substantive due process decision. Over the years, the Rehnquist Court had pretty well restricted Roe to abortion, declining to interpret it as a broad mandate. I fear this decision wrecks that work and opens the door to lower courts throwing out all kinds of state laws.
The criticism has nothing to do with the involvement of gays at all. The criticism is that the proper way to get the government out of the bedroom is through the legislative process. The people of Texas have a say in what their legislature does. They have no say at all in what the SCOTUS does. The issue before the court was not whether the Texas statute was "intrusive and purposeless," but whether it was strictly Constitutional. Rather than rely on the plain text of the Constitution, the court simply made up a new right. The danger is that the plain text of the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the Court. By the same token, it no longer matters what the plain text of the Second Amendment says either... if the court doesn't like it, they can simply define it away like the Ninth Circuit did.
I am and remain perplexed.
This opens the door to all kinds of pathologies becoming legalized. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's like the domino effect. You topple one taboo, then all the other taboos lined up behind it fall like dominos. First sodomy. Then gay marriage. Then adult/child sex. Then incest. Then bestiality. And on and on. The game doesn't end until all the dominos have fallen. That's been the game-plan all along.
So, this ruling is a major victory for gays. It opens the door to everything becoming equal between homosexuals and heterosexuals: marriage between gays - and everything that goes along with that: taxes, testifying in court, etc.
It's not the sodomy, per se, that people are objecting to being legalized - gays have been doing that all along, whether it was legal or not. It's the legal slippery slope that we now find ourselves on. Gay marriage is next on their agenda. Then all the sexual pathologies will follow.