[Jorge]

Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

[gogeo]

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments. There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

You're being disengenuous. Bad judgments are bad judgments, regardless of the subject. To suggest outcome-based judgments are preferable is antithecal to the rule of law. You do know how our system works, right?