[Amelia]

It has long been established, by the 14th Amendment, that states may not infringe Constitutional rights. The question is: how was the Constitutional right to sodomize established? It is based on an awful decision, that also led to the "right to abortion": Griswold v. Connecticut.

It seems to me that an equally good case could be made that enforcing sodomy laws violates the 4th Amendment.

Not that I'm a Constitutional lawyer, and not that I think homosexual behavior is moral, natural, or desirable -- I just have a problem with the government making any law that requires spying in someone's bedroom for enforcement.

[B Knotts]

Well, I agree that you have a point. My main complaint is that the same federal judiciary which has such a hard time recogizing enumerated rights, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is meanwhile finding various unenumerated (and arguably questionable) rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.

[GreatOne]

Not that I'm a Constitutional lawyer, and not that I think homosexual behavior is moral, natural, or desirable -- I just have a problem with the government making any law that requires spying in someone's bedroom for enforcement.

That's sophistry, much like the government kicking down doors to see if you're having an abortion (Donahue canard). Using that train of thought, should do away with child abuse, since that mostly happens behind closed doors. The issue is this: laws define the morals of a society. When we ban sodomy, we are saying that homosexuality activity is immoral and ought not be encouraged, much like we ban prostitution (sex for money), but not sex for free. You don't have to "spy" on a neighbor, which is what the 4th Amendment is for, but for when the crime is observed or come upon, like the vast majority of witness-associated crime occurs.