I agree with you up to the point of the court stepping in. Yes, our Legislature should reverse this aberration; No, courts should not tread where they have no sovereignty. I'm always concerned with unelected officials deciding on behalf of the less enlightened, even when the solons are right.

Define "no sovereignty" please? Can you define a role for the Supreme Court that preserves judicial review and does not at some point involve "unelected officials" deciding Constitutional questions "on behalf of the less enlightened?" Given that the Texas law, as I understand it prohibits homosexual sodomy while permitting heterosexual sodomy, there would seem to be a clear equal protection issue here. So why then is it inappropriate for the Court to rule?

As a public policy matter--one I disagree with--the Texas Legislature decided this issue, and unless this conflicts with other law, so the matter stands. The "equal protection" argument is the strongest one, of course, but sexual practise is purely a social issue, not a legal, political or economic one, and should not be as well protected in this regard.

It might also amuse you to know I believe the courts have gone far overboard in using the Commerce Clause to empower Congress to regulate the states. I also hold several other toady positions and think San Antonios had a perfect right to not floridate their water (not to mention their election, a pun hard to resist), as bad a decision as that was.

I'm not sure what San Antonio's quixotic battles over fluoridation have to do with this, Binkley, especially since the issue was decided by an election.

I know we have a fundamental philosophical difference here, but I believe that the Founders' original idea of the courts was to step in when the legislature did something unconstitutional. (That checks-and-balances thing I keep hearing about.) If you want to argue that there's no constitutional right to a particular form of consensual sex in one's own home, knock yourself out. Arguing that the court has no sovereignty in ruling on a law regulating such an activity seems bizarre to me.

Charles,

Where does the Constitution say that you have a "right to a particular form of consensual sex in one's own home?" It never says anything remotely connected to that. What's bizarre is the idea that this is a constitutional issue.

Owen,

You're kidding, right? Because if you're not, I'm gonna propose a law making it illegal for anyone who's ever been a member of the College Republicans to have sex with another College Republican. I mean, if it's not in the Constitution, why can't I?

Charles,

You can certainly try, although you'd fail because while many Americans would see a moral issue involved with homosexual sodomy, most wouldn't with regards to sex between Republicans. Bottom line: the Constitution isn't designed to keep any and all laws we might think are bad or wrongheaded from being written. If you don't like a law, fight it at the ballot box.

Otherwise, I suppose I can fight to have Supreme Court justices nominated who will interpret the Constitution as saying that all liberals must be burned at the stake. Why not? If it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, why can't the Supreme Court do just that?

That's exactly my point. This is a popularity issue. Some percentage of the country thinks homosexuals are bad, so laws like this get passed. Not too long ago, similar laws were passed because a lot of people thought blacks were bad. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now. You don't have to be in the majority to be an American citizen.

Either you believe that adult citizens get the same rights or you don't. If you believe the Texas anti-sodomy law is justified, then you don't believe that adult citizens get the same rights, and I find that reprehensible.

And please - burning at the stake? The Constitution may not specifically outlaw murder (though there is that bit about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that anti-murder statutes violate any of our countries founding principles.

Charles,

Please... Race and sexual orientation are entirely different concepts. The former is genetic and based upon physical appearance, the latter is not genetic and based upon behavior. Bringing up Jim Crow as a parallel is a stretch at best.

The bottom line is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. Showing moral outrage doesn't change this fact. And if a ruling that has nothing to do with the Constitution is allowed to pass, who is to say that they couldn't pass a dozen more? Goodness knows they already have - see Roe v. Wade.

This whole exercise is an attempt to bypass the democratic process, and I find that reprehensible.

Not half as reprehensible as I find using the democratic process as a means to denying a basic right to a large class of citizens. Does that really not bother you?

I'm sorry, but I do think this is a constitutional issue. Either adult citizens (nonfelons, of course) get the same rights or they don't. Rights should not be restricted for a given class of individuals based on the whims of some state legislatures.

Charles,

I don't believe the right to sodomize a member of the same sex is a "basic right," and it certainly isn't a Constitutional right. What is being regulated is not a certain class of individuals, but a behavior, and the state can regulate behavior. You're simply wrong in claiming that there is a Constitutional issue at stake.