I agree that the whole Kerry/DNC/Left stuff about supporting states rights on this matter was and is utter garbage. Its completely disingenuous because they know full well that the Courts are making such a position untenable and impossible. And what makes it even more disingenuous is that they know such judicial interference is even more certain if they are in office because the types of judges who behave in such a manner are the very judges they appoint.
Its all about biding their time until the Courts do for them what they can't do legislatively in a fair democratic fight -- impose gay marriage or civil unions. Then they hope a SCOTUS decision would take on a weight and momentum and gravitas of its own (like Roe unfortunately has where people consistently say they don't want it overturned yet turn around and say they oppose the defacto abortion on demand that it imposed). They would say "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law." That would be echoes by the Couric and Jennings of the press. And hopefully -- from the Left's perspective -- that would take on enough weight that it sort of inclines most Americans to just accept it and do nothing about it.
I am not shocked that the mainstream media or the debate moderators never followed up with such logical questions such as; "what then will you do to stop Courts from taking power away from the states Sen Kerry, and what would you do if the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions?", but I am sort of surprised that people like Chris Wallace don't even think to ask it of people like Pelosi?
Though I think more Americans are catching on to the Left's deceptive tactics, the full extent of it will never be known if the GOP isn't willing to point it out for them. Then maybe someday you'll actually hear a Katie Couric ask a Nancy Pelosi (or some other phony pro-states righter) ask what they'll do if the Courts destroy states rights on this just as they have with abortion. If that happens then things will be looking pretty good for our side.
This wasn't about "consenting adults" "in private":
Two adults consent to pay/receive money for sex and they are prohibited (it is not the financial aspect that makes it a crime, you can pay a babysitter to come into your home and provide unlicensed child care and even violate child labor laws and avoid "payroll taxes"). In the absence of fornication laws and adultery laws (both of which criminalized sex outside of marriage), there is little that can be done to provide 100% enforcement. Same with regulating it. Disease will still spread as long as people can go to a bar, buy someone a bunch of drinks, and still make a booty call/one night stand.
If those two men had been caught smoking pot or crack in their bedroom when the police entered, that would not have overturned drug laws in America. At MOST the court would have dismissed the charges against the men for the manner in which their crime had been discovered.
As to "consenting adults", some pending cases against men who had sex with underage boys were tossed out as it was determined that they would be afforded the same protection of a lower age of consent (below 18, AKA MINORS AKA NOT ADULTS) INCLUDING Romeo & Juliet (now Romeo and Romeo) exceptions if the younger partner was below age of consent but "near enough" to the adult seducer.