I appreciate your thoughts, but again, I think we have an unreconcilable difference of opinion. The beauty of our legal system (at least in theory) is that it is built to accomodate and withstand challenges so that the law is consistent with values in the constitution. The ideas underlying what you’re saying work very well, until you’re in the minority. Bringing a challenge to laws does not mean you have no respect for law or law-making. It could rather mean you have the utmost respect for the ability of the judiciary to seek justice consistent with grants in the constitution. The judiciary serves the necessary function of checking the limits of legislative power. Imagine the police state possibilities if we did not buy into that institution.
You should check your facts on Lawrence v. Texas, by the way. The arrest was precipitated by a neighbor’s false police report.
We aren’t at an impasse. Homosexual acts are morally wrong.
No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, desire is not enough to make such a wide-reaching social change as legal encouragement of homosexuality.
It’s incumbent on the ethical, responsible citizen to attempt changes in the law by reasonable, rational means and to at least attempt to give evidence that the change is for the better.
The 3 men who brought us the Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas case don’t add any evidence that their activities were either private or at all a change for the better for our society.
The “neighbor” who made the false complaint was Robert Royce Eubanks. He was actually Garner’s roommate at the time and was sexually involved with both Lawrence and Garner. He was later murdered in Garner’s apartment, before the case was even heard in the SCOTUS. Garner died a couple of years ago, of complications of an infection - according to FR posts, after losing his legs due to meningitis.