[ggekko]

If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right. To act as the Supreme Court did under Lawrence is usurp powers reserved for State Legilatures under the Constitution.

With one opinion the Supreme summarily removed from the State governments the right to regulate ANY sexual behavior. The Supreme Court eseentially asserted under Lawrence that State Goevrnments are too benighted to makes laws regarding these behaviors.

This ruling is an act of monumental effrontery and hubris on the part of the Supreme Court; it was also a legally incoherent and tortured legal opinion. It bespeaks of the contempt that elite opinion holds for traditional Constitutional understanding.

[agitator]

"If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right."

Seems to me that it would be better to reinforce the meaning of the 9th Amendment.

[Psalm118]

if everything goes as expected, than our descendants, this world continuing the slog on darkness road, can legally marry their pet dog, horse, or whatever.

I'll be glad to be no witness to it.

[Iris7]

The government calls talk like yours "specious legal theories." As far as what the Constitution meant to people in, say, 1830, it is of mere historical interest. This has been shown again, and again, and again. Getting upset over the whole business is childish.

[mrustow]

If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right.

If Justices already disregard the Constitution, and we go through the ordeal of passing "Amendments" which merely repeat what the Constitution already says, the Justices will simply repeat themselves and disregard the "Amendments," as well.

[ModelBreaker]

If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right. To act as the Supreme Court did under Lawrence is usurp powers reserved for State Legilatures under the Constitution.

Well said. If, as I suspect, agitator is a natural-rights libertarian, this argument will have no effect. Like liberals, they believe the constitution implements their agenda regardless of the text or history of the constitution. If I am wrong, my apologies in advance to agitator.