[Abundy]

Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?

Don't know anything about the Romer case, but a conservative can support the result in Lawrence since it dealt with what people do in the privacy of their homes. Regardless of one's position on homosexuality, conservatives should be drawing a bright line where government attempts to regulate consentual, non-harmful conduct ocurring in a private area like a bedroom.

And if Roberts was playing Scalia for a mock hearing, he really didn't help "prepare" the case. Stick with Levin's assessment of Roberts.

[rollo tomasi]

One of your "original extremist militia groupies" proposed a bill to punish sodomy by proposing banishment and castration. Also for the first time this "extremist" proposed punishing women for sodomy (Something that was not done at the time).

I guess it was an upgrade of receiving the death penalty.

[dsc]

"conservatives should be drawing a bright line where government attempts to regulate consentual, non-harmful conduct ocurring in a private area like a bedroom."

The thing is, you see, that by qualifying it as both "consensual" and "non-harmful," you have limited the subject to husbands and wives.

All extramarital sexual activity is harmful. In addition, those who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder are in a condition of reduced competence, like many others who suffer from mental disorders, and are therefore incompetent to consent.

IOW, anyone who *would* consent to homosexual activity is by definition too disordered to be competent to consent. There is, therefore, no such thing as consensual homosexual activity.