[colorado tanker]

You seemed to be implying that the Constitution has changed, without an amendment changing it.

Yep, that's what activist courts do, they change the Consitution without amending it, by finding new "rights."

If the courts say that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, then they're saying that they've always been unconstitutional, from the moment the relevant clauses have been part of the Constitution.

That's what they said. But doesn't it seem a little bit suspicous to you that for 213 years of this Republic no court ever said sodomy laws were unconstitutional??? And how about the fact that when the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment, went into effect, every State had a sodomy law but none of the men who actually wrote the Constitution ever said they were unconstitutional under the new Constitution???

This is just more "living Constitution" situational ethics bull pucky, which means your rights and mine mean nothing more than what five unelected justices think they mean, the plain language of the Constitution be d@nmed.

[inquest]

I may have misunderstood you at #151. When you said, "All would appear unconstitutional now," I thought you meant to say that these types of laws truly seem to have become unconstitutional, where they weren't before. I guess instead you were simply trying to make sense of SCOTUS's logic. Sorry for the confusion.