I sort of agree here...I'm glad Frist is expressing concern about this "ruling", and a desire to take some action, but it seems the real issue here is "legislating from the bench" in the matter of a newly-discovered "right to privacy" that has overturned duly enacted state laws...
From the article:
Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."
"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.
Clearly the Texas law was unconstitutional in that it prohibited a certain behaviour for only a limited group of citizens, while permitting it for others, and there were no reasonable age or mental health considerations involved. However, an amendment banning "gay marriage" addresses only that one issue, and of more concern I'd think is the "creative" and "activist" nature of the courts, and the precedents they're setting with this kind of broad interpretation and ruling.
I understand that the enumerated rights are not to be construed as limiting, but nevertheless, we arrive at the "slippery slope" (sorry...just had to say that!) when they start finding/interpreting/creating/establishing/declaring new "rights"...
I'm perturbed that the Supremes didn't just overturn the one specific law, but instead went far beyond what was called for. I'd hope for more "action" on this though, not unlike the "wrangles" involving the Roe-v-Wade rulings, regarding re-writing legislation (in the states, mind you...) on parental notification and etc. in order to "pass Constitutional muster"...
Clearly? Hardly.
You are on track up to this point - prostitution and adult incest are the same type of behavior but they rise to the level of socially and 'up until now' legally prohibited sexual conduct.
The Lawrence decision opens Pandora's Box...