That’s why it’s bad law: it casts to wide a net and interferes with normal marital relations. Pretending otherwise is the real disingenuousness. Well, that and pretending that you can simultaneously favor such a law and smaller government.
I’m in favor of Constitutional government, which leaves such matters to the states and not the fedgov. And the founders of the country thought such laws were definitely constitutional. I am for much smaller government, for instance the fedgov should do only those duties mandated in the Constituiton, that takes away about 80% of what they do.
Second, you are in favor of legalzing anal sodomy between homosexuals and you have ignored all the comments describing how that has accelerated tyranny and immorality.
If people keep their private lives private, no one knows or cares.
And oral sodomy is not normal marital relations. Thanks to porn, leftist promotion of immorality, and Clinton, oral sodomy is now considered fine, even for children, as I noted above.
You like such a world, I don’t, and the Founders of our country did not.
Second, you are in favor of legalzing anal sodomy between homosexuals
No, no, no.
That is not my position, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't been clear enough.
I am not in favor, I just don't see how it can be avoided anymore.
We can absolutely write legislation to prohibit public sexual behavior. We can, and ought to, write laws prohibiting adoption of children (as an aside, I don't know why we gave up on this fight, which undermines our best argument about preserving traditional marriage). But writing laws to control private behavior is a more difficult task. You either have laws that you don't intend to enforce (which is the real gateway to tyranny) or you have to start pounding down doors, which is a start in its own right.
Those cops in
Lawrence fell right into this trap, let themselves get suckered into a setup and ensured that what you and I think if such laws doesn't matter.
Then you have a law like Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" act, which is so poorly written and so broad as to entrap husbands and wives. Ah, but we're told, nobody
really intends to enforce those provisions. Which is terrible law, and again the gateway to tyranny, even if you believe that the government is your friend and can be trusted to always be on the side of the angels. We all recognize that burdensome and meddlesome regulation is bad for businesses, and we all detest the left's social engineering, yet too many of us are willing and eager to do both when we think it'll further our ends. Boggles the mind.
So no, I don't favor that. But what choice to we have, given the reality? How do you advocate we put that genie back in the bottle? I'm a policy kind of guy. I'm interested in how we make the best and most realistic policy argument, and that sometimes means facing an unpleasant reality.
If people keep their private lives private, no one knows or cares.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, we didn't write all our laws with this in mind, and gave their activists an opening to toss good law out with bad. Now we're no likely to go back to the "keep it private" era than SCOTUS is to return to its senses.
The problem I see is what do we do now, given that? I see Cuccinelli grandstanding rather than governing, and that makes me very nervous for the next election. McAuliffe is an unprincipled scumbag but a good politician.