"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>Why would you believe that the
>state, in turn, has a right to regulate your consensual sex life?
They do. I oppose most such regulations via the political process,
but there are indeed such regulations that most people support, and
which exist in every state. I oppose federal courts usurping the
power of the people to decide such issues, when the political process
does just fine.
For instance: bigamy, incestuous consensual sex between adult blood
relatives. If you want federal courts to be able to enforce their
morals over those of the people in each state, you put yourself at the
mercy of Justice Kennedy, arguing that we need to be more in line with
the morals of certain other nations.
States do have a right to regulate in these areas, at least according
to the widespread prevalence of such laws.
>In the case of sodomy laws it's easy because the targetted group is (was)
>weak and were already outcasts.
Same with bigamists. I don't see the principle that distinguishes
them.
>It was easy to violate their rights. It's
>also easy because it's a potentially embarrassing activity that would keep
>many people from defending for obvious reasons.
These days, in some liberal communities, that could also apply to
being a Christian, or an unmarried adult virgin!
>The best case against it is that a person's private, consensual sex lif is
>nobody's business.
I would agree if you drop the special limitation for sex, and apply it
to all of one's private life, including all other forms of
"intercourse" (travel, financial, mind-altering, etc.)
