Replies

Honestly, most of these issues about morality should be addressed and solved in the private sector. No laws required. (It used to be called social taboo I think. Good old fashioned shame.) The laws required are local laws.
But to take the position that the gov't has no role ever, at all, in maintaining the desired moral, social norms of a community, is to deny it's people the freedom to organize and assemble a community as they see fit (within the Constitution). That isn't freedom, that's anarchy. - 84

Under the bill rights, such community 'social norms' are powers guaranteed to the states, ie, - to the people. [10th]
But in 'regulating' such community [public] behavior, the rest of the BORs', and ALL un-enumerated individual rights, [life, liberty, property] - must not be violated. [14th]
Nevada, for instance, regulates public behavior as well or better than most states, while allowing much in private you find 'immoral'.
--Millions of people who live there would be highly amused by your contention that they live in some sort of anarchy.

Millions of people who live there would be highly amused by your contention that they live in some sort of anarchy. I don't content they live in anarchy, lol. I just use them as an example because they legalize something that other communities don't, proving that local communities can decide for or against moral issues. I am not asking the gov't to address every moral issue. I am just saying it is not against the Constitution for them to address moral issues. LOL I don't promise everything I said is perfect, but generally, that is how I see it. I am not advocating any extremes. Just gov't of, by and for the people. Not to be reduced to the whim of the most decadent among us.