[Dumb_Ox]

And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental.

Right, but how do you base a coherent jurisprudence on unwritten laws without just making things up as you go along?

I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental.

[puroresu]

You're correct. Rulings such as this transfer power from the people to the judges. This is the effect of the "unenumerated right to privacy" created by the Supreme Court in Griswold. Does it mean we have a right to do ANYTHING we want in private? No, but it transfers the power of determination from the voters to the judges. All the "unenumerated right to privacy" means is that we can do anything in private that judges approve of. If we're doing something in private they don't approve of, then suddenly the right to privacy vanishes.

Watch how fast liberal judges uphold bans on smoking in the privacy of one's home when they start to come down. Ditto for when liberals start to regulate what we eat, and someday they will, believe me.

[MACVSOG68]

I also doubt the right to fornicate is existent, let alone fundamental.

You think maybe it might be part of "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness"?