mtfester@netscape.net wrote:

> Kevin Wayne Williams <nihongo> wrote:
> 
>>Brett Robson wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what people do in
>>>prvacy.
> 
> 
>>I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense ...
>>the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th amendment
>>is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment is more relevant to ruling on affirmative action.
> 
> 
>>things like adult incest are legal. Drug possession would be difficult
>>to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision. It basically sets
>>a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.
> 
> 
> Um, no, not any more than, say, the 21st Amendment.

I didn't say that the 14th Amendment said that. I said that the
precedent set by Lawrence vs. Texas says that.It specifically bases
itself on the 14th Amendment.

From the majority:
 "Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the
fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding
a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save
a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second,
individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of
their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce
offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to
intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons."

From Connor's separate opinion:
"Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause, as the Court does, I base my conclusion
on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."

 Do the words "strained" and "stretched" mean something different than I
thought? What words could I have used that would have better conveyed
that I thought the court was really, really reaching to make the
conclusion it did? I may like the consequences, but I think the logic
sucked.

KWW