[HumanaeVitae]

Of the thirteen states, only three or four (I believe) have anti-sodomy laws written narrowly, as the Texas law was.

The problem with the Texas law, as noted in several of the amicus briefs arguing for upholding the statute, was that it gave the appearance of discrimination by forbidding only homosexual sodomy. This is, of course irrelevant, but the appearance of "discrimination" is what drove this apparently successful challenge.

[Regulator]

Where in the Constitution does it say that laws cannot be made that use gender as the deciding factor in the severity or even the commission of a crime?

Is the rape of a male by a male considered as bad as rape of a female by a male?

Once again, this court just wrote into the Constitution that which was not there.

[steve-b]

The problem with the Texas law, as noted in several of the amicus briefs arguing for upholding the statute, was that it gave the appearance of discrimination by forbidding only homosexual sodomy.

The problem with Clinton, as noted in several of the exposes of his administration, was that he gave the appearance of corruption by accepting money in exchange for pardons.

The problem with Jack the Ripper, as noted in several of the police reports drawn up at the time, was that he gave the appearance of psycopathy by brutally murdering people.

[RAT Patrol]

It only appears to discriminate if you buy the lie that a group of people who desire something are somehow set appart from everyone else, and therefore a kind of minority group that can be deprived their equal protections.

Look for Torie to be all over FR today issuing his "I'd like to thank the Academy" speeches. Gag!

[1L]

forbidding only homosexual sodomy

There is no problem with this since homosexuality is a behavior and not a trait -- regardless of whether people ARE homosexuals or BECOME homosexuals. EVERYONE is equal under this law, since EVERYONE can engage in sodomy with a person of the opposite sex, but not a person of the same sex. If the law affects someone different, that isn't a per se equal protection violation.