[scrabblehack]

As I understand it, they did not say that there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy. The existing law violated due process, they said, and presumably there is some process by which sodomy can be illegalized, although they neglected to explain what it was.

[ModelBreaker]

As I understand it, they did not say that there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy. The existing law violated due process, they said, and presumably there is some process by which sodomy can be illegalized, although they neglected to explain what it was.

The holding of the case is that there is a constitutional right to engage in Sodomy. The reasoning of the case--such as it was--avoided such direct statements, probably because it would make them sound stupid.

[Tribune7]

As I understand it, they did not say that there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy.

They pretty much said there was a constitutional right to engage in sodomy.

As per Wiki

The majority decision found that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy's opinion crucially grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold). This opened the door in theory to protection of a whole host of sexual activity between consenting adults not protected by other decisions. Kennedy was careful however not to extend the opinion to include governmental recognition of such relationships.