So here's the thing: the constitution says that anything not covered by the constitution is left to the states. Ammendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So the state of Texas made laws about sex. If the US Supreme Court says the law is unconstitutional, it must think the constitution has something to say about sex and the rights regarding it. This seems a rather weak argument, but there it is.
See this is why I'm not so sure that those fighting against this law are going about it quite the right way. The question probably shouldn't be "can the states pass such a law" rather "does it make sense in this day and age for the states to pass laws about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom"? You want to pass laws to make it illegal to have sex with minors, or farm animals, or dead bodies, hey I'm down with that. But what two grown ups want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom should be their business. We shouldn't be opposing this on a Constitutional level, rather on a common sense one. Does this law make any more sense than those on the books saying witches may be stoned to death or cats put on trial? Uh, no, so why not fight it as a stupid law that should be repealed rather than making a Supreme Court case out of it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re:
Date: 2003-04-09 08:26 am (UTC)See this is why I'm not so sure that those fighting against this law are going about it quite the right way. The question probably shouldn't be "can the states pass such a law" rather "does it make sense in this day and age for the states to pass laws about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom"? You want to pass laws to make it illegal to have sex with minors, or farm animals, or dead bodies, hey I'm down with that. But what two grown ups want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom should be their business. We shouldn't be opposing this on a Constitutional level, rather on a common sense one. Does this law make any more sense than those on the books saying witches may be stoned to death or cats put on trial? Uh, no, so why not fight it as a stupid law that should be repealed rather than making a Supreme Court case out of it?