[tpaine]

" -- would you kindly explain to me from what text in the Constitution have the federal courts received any grant whatever to rule on issues involving sexuality?
-BB-


Our general rights to life & liberty pretty well encompress sexual rights Betty, - there's no need to enumerate them. Thus the courts powers granted under Art III apply to 'sexuality' issues, when such issues are violated.
The constitutional principle that life, liberty and property cannot be denied by fed/state/local 'laws' that violate due process, -- must be upheld.

Obviously, the court felt that the case in question defined that principle in private sexual matters.

Let us hope that the same principle can now be used to strike down the 'wars' on guns, drugs, and 'sin' that our prohibitionist brethren insist on fighting.



Where do you stand on such prohibitory type laws, Betty?

[unspun]

As for the Supreme Court merely being for "federal hands off," here, well, read through the majority opinions.

But I've forgotten for a moment, it seems that you even believe that the Amendment X powers of the States and People are somehow mitigated by the limits of powers placed upon Federal government.

[betty boop]

sexual rights....

Sexual rights??????? Jeepers, tpaine -- think about what you're saying here -- "rights" is a freaking political term. Do you actually approve of the "politicization of sex???" If the politician gets a toe-hold there, how can he be stopped from intruding anywhere else? Can you spell: "B-I-G_B-R-O-T-H-E-R"?

[betty boop]

Where do you stand on such prohibitory type laws, Betty?

I'm for: Vermont Carry; legalization (and taxation) of drugs; and getting the federal government completely out of the "sin" business.