[Xenalyte]

Slice it anyway you like, but this law in Texas did in fact violate the "equal protection" clause.

The case should have stopped at the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas law did in fact violate equal protection, and the Texas Supremes should have done something about that.

Let me make myself clear: I don't care what two consenting non-related adults do in private. Not one bit. But in 1971 (I think), the Texas Supremes removed the hetero element from the law in question, and they should have removed the whole thing when this case came before them.

[Dead Corpse]

The case should have stopped at the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas law did in fact violate equal protection, and the Texas Supremes should have done something about that.
Let me make myself clear: I don't care what two consenting non-related adults do in private. Not one bit. But in 1971 (I think), the Texas Supremes removed the hetero element from the law in question, and they should have removed the whole thing when this case came before them.

The Texas courts SHOULD have done the right thing. I agree. However they didn't. In such cases, do we not have the Right to "redress our grievances" before the next higher court? The USSC is about as high as you can get.

If anything, back in the '70s when they "removed" the hetro portion of this law... they set up the inequality in the law that led to this.

Ms. Grundy got the smack down. That is not a bad thing. It isn't like the USSC came up with some "penumbra" or "emmanation" this time. More freedom is not a bad thing. I know we agree on that. ;-)