[El Gato]

The states have never had the power to prohibit such activities, under our constitution.

Under the 10th amendment, the states retain whatever powers they had and are not explicitly forbidden to exercise. Where are they explicitly forbidden to exercise the power to proscribe certain types of sexual conduct? Since you said never, you must refrain from pointing to the 14th amendment, since that wasn't passed until after the civil war. However I don't think even the 14th amendment prevents them from passing such laws. That doesn't mean I necessarily think such laws are a good idea, Justice Thomas doesn't think so either and in general I tend to agree, mainly on enforceability grounds.

[Redcloak]

You need to consider the 9th and 10th Amendments in light of the 14th. The 14th modifies them. Prior to the passage of the 14th, one could argue that there was a Federal right to buggery under the 9th Amendment, but that the restriction against legal infringement did not apply to the States. In fact, the 10th guaranteed their power to regulate such matters. However, the 14th changes that. Rights guaranteed against Federal instrusion are also guaranteed against State infringment.

[tpaine]

The states have never had the power to prohibit such [sinful] activities, under our constitution.
Took a long time to establish this principle, but here we are.
1,278 -tpaine -

Under the 10th amendment, the states retain whatever powers they had and are not explicitly forbidden to exercise. Where are they explicitly forbidden to exercise the power to proscribe certain types of sexual conduct?

Where were they ever given such power? I see no such grants in state constitutions, and there is certainly no such federal power. Certainly, the colonies had 'sin' laws, but we fought a revolution to gain freedom from such arbitrary rules.

Since you said never, you must refrain from pointing to the 14th amendment, since that wasn't passed until after the civil war.

The 14th was passed to remedy the erronious Barron decision. The Constitution & BOR's have aways been the supreme Law of the Land, as per Art VI.

However I don't think even the 14th amendment prevents them from passing such laws.

Why do you fight the clear intent of ALL of our founding principles? I don't 'get' it.

That doesn't mean I necessarily think such laws are a good idea, Justice Thomas doesn't think so either and in general I tend to agree, mainly on enforceability grounds.

You have a real problem.
I suggest you give it more thought as to why you think states need prohibitive powers.