How many are going to argue that such is compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers?
Ironically, the Comstock laws, which outlawed the sale or distribution of contraceptive devices, were written in the late 1800s by Protestant US Representatives. Those Protestants, in 1873, apparently believed the Comstock laws were compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers:
The Comstock Act, 17 Stat. 598, enacted March 3, 1873, was a United States federal law which amended the Post Office Act[1] and made it illegal to send any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes. Twenty-four states passed similar prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[2] Collectively, these state and federal restrictions are known as the Comstock laws.
In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well.
And of course, as most pro-lifers realize, Griswold v. Connecticut was the prior history on which the subsequent jurisprudence of Roe Vs Wade and other bad decisions were based, proving once again the direct link between contraception, abortion and homosexuality:
The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in support of the Court's result in Roe v. Wade (1973). The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion. The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law was struck down, legalizing abortion for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second (the mid-point of which is the approximate time of fetal viability), and possibly illegal in the third with exception for the mother's health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas state law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Justice O'Connor who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home," and attempted to "control a personal relationship that . . . is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished." Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the "right to privacy" found in Griswold as the "most pertinent beginning point" in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.[2]
If there is a compelling government interest in regulation of what a couple does and does not do to each other in their own bedroom - there is very little that they would NOT have a compelling government interest in regulating.
Most Americans don't think the Government does, or should have that much power.
I wonder which enumerated power would cover such Government regulation. Interstate commerce again? The Liberals favorite excuse for unlimited government power! Amusing to see a “conservative” making the same argument of expansive government power with no limitation discernible.