[Tribune7]

As I understand it, they did not say that there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy.

They pretty much said there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy.

As per Wiki

The majority decision found that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy's opinion crucially grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold). This opened the door in theory to protection of a whole host of sexual activity between consenting adults not protected by other decisions. Kennedy was careful however not to extend the opinion to include governmental recognition of such relationships.

[scrabblehack]

Hmm...PSA’s a few years ago (I don’t recall who sponsored them) said otherwise....probably just disinformation, as with Roe v. Wade and the trimester stuff.

[NeoCaveman]

The majority decision found that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections."

Anyone who believes in substantive due process (that process has a a substance) should be disqualified from being on the Court and from being able to appoint people to the Court, all the way down to traffic court.