In Lawrence v. Texas, proponents of judicial activism in the cause of liberal ideological goals are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to do something the justices have never done before:
Ah, well, now we know where this guy is coming from. There go those awful liberal activitists again.
The Supreme Court has never recognized a right to fornication, adultery, or any other form of sexual misconduct.
Yep, making it still clearer. It's about "sexual misconduct."
In the event that it takes such a step, the Court will face a question: If some types of non-marital sex acts are protected by the constitution, and others are not, what is the principle or criterion (allegedly derived from the Constitution itself) by which judges are to decide which types merit protection and which do not?
Geez, and I'll be darned. All the time I thought it was about privacy. No, he says, it's about that critical, fundamental, buttress of all proper social order, heterosexual marriage.
Aw, Bill, give me a break. You know better than this guy. |
