[Schuck]

A contrarian view...

While I agree this case was wrongly decided (see Justice Scalia's excellent dissent), I'm not sure we are headed down the slippery slope.

Years ago, the Court ruled that illegal immigrant children had to be allowed to attend public school. (I'm too lazy to look up the case name or cite, think it was a Texas case). Everyone predicted that was it, it was just a matter of litigation until illegals had every right that citizens have. Didn't happen. While there may be one or two more exceptions, the Court has refused several times to extend other constitutional rights to illegals - that's why we can have "military tribunals" for terrorists, for example.

Why only the right to attend school? My theory is that the Justices let their desire to be charitable and offer a hand up trump the Constitution, and issued sort of a "one-time" exception. Legislating from the bench? Yes. Wrong? In my opinion, yes. But understandable - I think the thought of kicking poor children out of school onto the streets would give even the most hardened conservative pause.

Flash forward to Lawrence. The Texas law was archaic and, in Justice Thomas' words, "silly." The Legislature should have repealed it years ago, it was an invitation to discriminatory enforcement. It needed to go. So the Justices bent the Constituion this one time. I suspect when the issue is gay marriage (or polygamy or drug use or euthanasia) the Court will find an excuse to back-pedal away from their reasoning and let this decision stand as a one-time freak.

[aristeides]

Doesn't Limon show that Lawrence is already more than a one-time freak?

My chief reason for supporting the sort of amendment that this thread is about is that it might persuade the Supreme Court to severely limit the application of Lawrence.

[tdadams]

Everyone predicted that was it, it was just a matter of litigation until illegals had every right that citizens have. Didn't happen.

Surely you not accusing some people here of hysterical exaggeration??? What heresy!

[Jhoffa_]

I am glad you're so relaxed about the degrading of our Constitution. After all, it's "understandible" that the Justices let their own personal bias override the will of the people and their duly elected represtatives.

Roe was no big deal either.. Ho, hum..

Hey, Oprah's on..

[PMCarey]

I suspect when the issue is gay marriage (or polygamy or drug use or euthanasia) the Court will find an excuse to back-pedal away from their reasoning and let this decision stand as a one-time freak.

You may be right because now that the SCOTUS is a omnipoint legislative branch it has no need to adhere to the law, to tradition or to past decisions. It can go willy-nilly where it will upon the winds of public opinion and the opinions of the intelligenzia.