Replies

No, it absolutely does not say for government to back off. It says that the unelected federal courts are the real power in Texas, not the people or their elected representatives.

Most libertarians operate on the assumption that behavior has no consequences. The problem is, it does.

So when people engage in sexual irresponsibility in "private", they create public consequences. "Tolerance" of gay behavior leads to increased government.

When homosexual behavior is in the closet and legally restricted, it forces homosexuals, who are wildly promiscuous be nature, to be discrete. But once "liberated", they find it easier to obtain sex partners and a bathhouse culture arises. This is why AIDS spread like wildfire, and it's cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.

Once uncloseted, homosexuals go on a rampage against anyone who disagrees with them. They inevitably do this because they psychologically need constant reinforcement of their behavior, because even they know it is ugly and unnatural.

The result is speech codes, restricting free speech. Then the government forces schools to teach that homosexuality is normal, even if parents hold different religious values. Private clubs and groups like the Boy Scouts come under assault from gays determined to force them to change their moral teachings. Laws are passed forcing employers to hire gays and landlords to rent to them. Churches lose their tax exempt status if they fail to sanction gay relationships.

One necessarily leads to the other. You surely don't believe that all the gay activists want is to be left alone to commit sodomy in private, and that they'll take full responsibility for the consequences of that.

Keeping homosexuality in the closet requires less government than is unleashed when homosexuality is uncloseted. That's why big government "liberals" like Hillary are for repealing sodomy laws. She isn't trying to get the government off out backs, she's trying to expand it exponentially, and uncloseted homosexuality always leads to that.