[Mr. Silverback]

Yeah, what ModelBreaker said, with one slight change: The new right the SCOTUS found was not Sodomy, and was not really new. They've found it before: Privacy. They first found this right in the 9th Amendment in a contraception case in the 60s, and went on to "find" it again in the 9th and/or 14th (more detail in this article) for Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton. What the Justices of the last two generations simply refuse to recognize is that if the Founders wanted to include a right to privacy they could have done so very easily. The current court is stretching the combination of privacy and consent to make a trump card that outweighs all state interests, and I don't think that they realize just how badly they've screwed up.

[ModelBreaker]

Yeah, what ModelBreaker said, with one slight change: The new right the SCOTUS found was not Sodomy, and was not really new. They've found it before: Privacy.

I was out of town so this reply is late. I agree with most of your post, but disagree with the quoted language. I would not dignify the Supreme Court's so-called 'privacy' decisions by characterizing 'privacy' as a right. 'Privacy' is just a label that the Supremes use when they decide to declare a law unconstitutional.

The proof of this statement may be found in the range of 'private' behavior that the Supreme Court would never contemplate including in this so called right. For example: the right to murder someone in the privacy of your home, the right to sell a gun to another in the privacy of your home, etc. Thus, that an act is private is not sufficient to bring behavior into this so-called right. There has to be a belief by the supremes that States should not regulate this behavior--in other words, the behavior itself has to be in some way approved by the Court.

Thus, the Supremes decide that something (eg abortion, sodomy) is OK and should not be regulated by the government and then they call it 'privacy.'

But what the supremes really declared is a right of Sodomy. Privacy is the euphemism to let them pretend (perhaps to themselves, and certainly to the public) that they don't actually approve of the behavior they have just lent constitutional status.

Don't let the left set the terms of the debate. It is not about privacy. It is about the power of six old men (and women) to act as unelected and unrecallable dictators, amending the constitution willy-nilly to suit the whims of our leftist elite. In the Lawrence case, it is about amending the constitution to conform it to the leftist elite's belief that homosexual Sodomy is cool.