1) This has nothing to do with changing the law. It is all about:
a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.
b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.
2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states. Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?
No, it is about dragging people into civil court the same way that the gun grabbers try to drag the gun dealers and manufactures into court.
Yet.
It is all about:
a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.
Hmm. That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it would work with speeding. Oops, sorry. I was thinking out loud there.
b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.
That fair. Innocuous even. Can we expect them to work towards longer skirts and higher necklines? Is it too early to say goodbye to hiphuggers?
I'm asking you where the line should be drawn.
2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states.
I'm not aware of any state having a law against premarital sex. Please, enlighten me.
Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?
No. But I sometimes have a problem with people referring to marriage as a contract. It's not. It's a sacrament of the church. Oh, wait. I forgot. Not everybody goes to church.
So much for enforcing morals.