Fifty years ago, even twenty years ago, the very rationale used by Kennedy to strike down the Texas sodomy law, and the outcome of that rationale, would have been regarded as silly. That something is silly is no longer a good indication that some court will not make a ruling based on that silliness.
At my daughter's school, where 16 year-olds are given their own Escalades and Lexi, tongue-piercing is rather popular among the girls. Why? Because apparently it enables them to give more pleasurable oral gratification to their boyfirends, and and between hook-ups their ability and willingness to do so. (at this point, my daughter doesn't even have pierced ears, whew!).
These are the Children of Clinton, who were raised watching Jerry Springer. Springer drew the line (but only after a pre-broadcast outcry, the show was taped) at bestiality, but incest between hotties was good for Sweeps.
"Animal rights" is a phrase that is bandied without fear of derision, and is taught in Harvard Law, and will undoubtedly spread to other law schools so long as judges can rule with whimsy from the bench. When the Springer/Clinton kids sit on the bench after 30 years of more "emerging awareness," how can there be any confidence that they'll see any silliness in rullngs favoring incest and bestiality?
