[DonQ]

The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does.

Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

[rintense]

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

Normally, I would agree with this. But considering the wild rulings lately within the courts, nothing would surprise me.

[mrustow]

The Texas case dealt with the right to privacy .... in particular, private sex behind closed doors without the local cops peeking through the keyhole. But the Texas case did not involve legitimizing those sexual connections in the way that a legally recognized marriage does. Marriage carries with it a LOT of legal baggage that casual sex doesn't; for example, confidentiality of husband-wife communications, rights of inheritance/support/property division, tax considerations, the right to bring a lawsuit for the death or crippling of the spouse, etc. etc. You don't get those legal considerations from a hot date.

The attempt to stretch the Texas case to apply to the legal ramifications of a bona fide marriage are inapposite and doomed.

You're being much too logical. My reaction was the same as yours, when Rick Santorum said that striking down the Texas sodomy law would make it permissible to marry your mother, dog, etc. But the USSC majority decision explicitly referred to gay marriage. What we have here, is not logic or law, but an irrational mentality, hostile to legal precedent, yet common to the ruling elites, particularly federal judges and professors of law.