You'll have to clarify what you mean, because it's not self-evident.
It can't be regarded as just another "right to privacy" because "right to Privacy" does not exist in my Constitution.
It can still be regarded as just another "right to privacy" regardless of whether it exists in your Constitution. An Right to Privacy ruling - even pretending it's not based upon the Constitution - is still not an Equal Protection ruling. As I've stated, this would require an Equal Protection ruling, which Lawrence was not.
That is the problem, people on the other side from me keep thinking "no court will go any further and endorse...whatever"
I have no doubt whatsoever that a court will go further, I just don't think it will happen soon. Even with this FMA, it will still happen, but much slower (whenever it's repealed - in a generation or two).
I figured driving home that was going to be too vague. Think outside the box here, Right To Privacy is Judicial Activism, its not Constitutionally based, not Constituationally implied, and either invented in 72 by a Judge with the foresight of a child-or crafted to create a Lawyer-Jobs-Program for various crimes from now til the end of the country.
An Right to Privacy ruling - even pretending it's not based upon the Constitution -
Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Seriously, I know this Right is very important to those who fear the government and the evils it will lay upon us, but we have other checks and balances like search and seizure laws that you need to understand. The only "pretending" going on is that Right to Privacy was not excavated from my country's Constitution before Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).
The Founding Fathers were libertarians too. Constantly concerned about the overreachings of a governing body. They created one of the best laid out, cross referenced, intricate series of weights and balances to form a government in the Constitution. I encourage you to read it to put your mind at ease, I wish this Supreme Court had.