[WOSG]

"Rather I was addressing the naivity of those who claim this is some sort of watershed decision regarding morality in American when in fact most states have already repealed sodomy laws."

Jorge, true that Supreme Courts dont influence as much as reflect the moral state of the country.

But this is a watershed ruling in Judicial over-reach. The practical implications will go FAR BEYOND enforcement or (already barely enforced) sodomy laws. We just dont know what's in the Pandora's box yet.

Without Griswold, which seemed innocuous, there was no Roe.

"I wasn't arguing any constitutional point one way or the other."

Why are you on this thread then? I find it curious that 380 posts in - NOT A SINGLE POST HAS DEFINITIVELY DEFENDED THE INDEFENSIBLE: THE MAJORITY RULING.

And yet, we have many posts complaining about the 'complainers'.

[Jorge]

But this is a watershed ruling in Judicial over-reach. The practical implications will go FAR BEYOND enforcement or (already barely enforced) sodomy laws. We just dont know what's in the Pandora's box yet.

So unless we support laws that say we can bust down doors of consenting adults to to arrest them for things like sodomy or adultery....we will be opening a pandora's box?

Is this our only choice?