Actually, the Texas statute was specifically directed at same-sex conduct. This was the reason that Justice O’Connor, who actually was part of the Bowers majority (in finding criminalization of same-sex sex constitutional), did NOT join the Lawrence majority in overruling Bowers. So, she did not agree that there is a right to privacy. What she did agree with was that Texas statute was unconstitutional, because it targeted same-sex couples only.

Text is right here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html

My point to Ryan was that there was no finding of a “protected class” in Lawrence. What there was – was finding of a fundamental right to privacy and an Equal Protection discrimination, but no finding of a protected class.

And yet … if you told me it was raining and Scalia told me that the sun was shining, I’d carry an umbrella.

Check the Lawrence case. It doesn’t actually recognize gays as a suspect class under 14th Amendment. If it did, we’d probably already have marriage equality throughout the country. The majority (5) recognized the fundamental right to consensual same-sex sex.

And if you are talking of 6 Justices, O’Connor would have been fine if sodomy was banned for everyone, but it wasn’t. As far as I remember, her argument was that the law targeted gays and not heterosexuals.

You cannot legislate morality IF the justification for said legislation is Un-Constitutional, to be most accurate.

Witholding rights can only be done to citizens who have broken the law.

Not being snippy.

A forgone (bigoted) conclusion in search of legal justification, no matter how tenuous, obscure or nebulous. And written with as much anger as possible at the ninnies who are “just too dumb to see what he sees.”

If he sat on his porch and spewed his views at passers-by, someone would call the mental ward. But Ronald F-ing Reagan dressed him in a robe and inflicted him upon us. For that alone, “St. Ronnie” should be subjected to every last torture method in Hades…