Hyperbole and Misdirection. Senator Frist is implying that the USSC decision somehow condones illegal activity "because it was in the home" and that is a complete misrepresentation of the ruling.
The USSC decided that the Texas Law didn't pass Constitutional muster as it violated not only the 14th Amendment, but the very idea that the government has the power to intrude in the private relations of consenting individuals, not that illegal activity is somehow OK "in private".
The decision in no way approved of, nor denigrated, said activity, it simply stated that the Texas Legislature grossly overstepped their Constitutional mandated powers in passing the law in the first place.
Now I here you all out there screaming 10th Amendment and I will address that simply by saying that your 10th Amendment argument presupposes that the State had the right to impose this Law in the first place. That's a starting point, not an ending point my friends. The 10th Amendment States that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
As you can see the key phrase in regards to this case, in my opinion, would have to be; nor prohibited by it to the States. The question before the court wasn’t; is homosexual sex protected by the Constitution but, was the Law prohibiting it Constitutionally correct?
Some would argue that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee us a right to privacy, nor does it guarantee us the right to homosexual relations. This seems to be a favorite argument of the “if the Constitution doesn’t say you have the right then you don’t have the right” crowd. These people often pass themselves off as some type of all knowing Constitutional Gurus yet seem to forget one simple thing, the 9th Amendment. You know the one I’m talking about right? That pesky little Amendment that says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So much for the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the “right to privacy” crowd. As anyone can plainly see, just because the Constitution doesn’t spell out the “right to privacy” in black and white, it is not a slam-dunk, by any stretch of the imagination, that we don’t indeed have that right.
So, to find out if this is indeed a just and good law, we have to go to the other Amendments and test the law against them. It is here that the Texas Law fails so miserably, as it is clearly, in deed and intent, a violation of the 14th Amendment, as opined by Justice O’Connor. The idea that a certain specific group of people would be singled out for prosecution, for actions that the majority populous would not, is anathema to this nations entire existence. An existence predicated on the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among those the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The private consensual pursuit of happiness by two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, is constitutionally protected. So rules the Supreme Court.