[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.

[ggekko]

"The government calls talk like yours "specious legal theories."

Three of the Justices in the Lawrence eseentially agreed with my position. In truth, I am more less paraphrasing the substance of Justice Scalia's dissent.

Strict Constructionism is a foundational legal doctrine that is supported by a number of legal theorists such as Notre Dame's Douglas Kmiec and other prominent scholars; it is based upon the notion Natural Law as articulated repeatedly by the founding fathers. It is at this time a minority position in the legal profession but it is growing in importance. I am not willing to throw in the towel just because many Jurists are mired in Oliver Wendell Holmes' Legal Positivism.

Positivist Law has been enshrined in a number of foreign jusridictions and nowhere more universally than in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The Germans under the Nazis were among the most scrupulously law abiding people on the face of the earth. Every single act performed under Nazi rule was legal under the German code including the death camps. The Soviet psychiatric gulags created under the cover of similar legal punctiliousness.

Regardless of one's position on Constitutional interpretation no issue will be settled when a controversial matter is disposed of by legal fiat. The convoluted legal reasoning evidenced in Lawrence is indicative of the fact that almost any reasonable reading of the Constitution is incompatible with post-modernist ethical constructs. This may surpise you but most be people would be astonished and appalled to learn that the Constition has been summarily abolished in favor of the ethical relativism, anti-nomianism and totalitarian diversity doctrines as embodied in the Lawrence decision.