Nothing that you stated in the passage backed up your points, or made any logical claim of evidence whatsoever.
Myth Two : Sodomy Laws are a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution
Not seen this one. Don't care. Agreed.
Myth Three: Ok, but it violated the Constitutions clause on "Equal Protection" under the law, because it was ok for a man and woman to something that it was illegal for a man to do to a man. That's not 'equal protection'.
And here you're outright wrong.
If it is legal for woman to have oral sex with a man, then it must be legal for a man to do.
And then we continue the rant with beastiality, and a lot of other red herrings not related to the issue at hand.
Myth Four: but it did violate their constitutional "right to privacy"! That one is a myth alright. Their is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
Wrong again. 9th and 10th Amendments. If a power is not explicitly listed as beloning to the Feds, it belongs to the states or the people.
For you to be right there'd have to be a "The people do not have a right to privacy" clause in the Constitution.
In the long run though, the best answer is to put back in a counterweight to federal encroachment of the several States that was lost when we went to direct election of Senators
Well, you finally said something sensible.
To be consistent with this thinking- consistent in leading our society down into a debauched moral cesspool, one would also have to claim that the equal protection clause was written to protect polygamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, and perhaps even bestiality and necrophilia if the owners sign the right papers first.....Such people should take a good look at how much destruction they are willing to unleash to justify their ungodliness. They should not be surprised that the responsible among us unite to rebuke them.
Equal protection means just that, protection. It has nothing to do with what activities the law condemns. It has everything to do with the government protecting the victims of those crimes by punishing those who victimized them. If crimes against blacks or gays were not investigated, or prosecuted, then they don't have equal protection and the feds could step in.
Again, there is no way on Earth the Founders / writers of the 14th amendment intended the equal protection clause, or the due process clause, to enable sodomy. Its absurd. Insisting that is what it means in no way changes the facts of original intent.
Wrong again. 9th and 10th Amendments. If a power is not explicitly listed as beloning to the Feds, it belongs to the states or the people.
For you to be right there'd have to be a "The people do not have a right to privacy" clause in the Constitution.
Not so. Your misinterpretation of those amendments puts the Feds in charge of ajudication between which implied rights trumps which, the "people's" or the "states". When you get into that game, the Feds can make up all the "implied rights" the want, "balance" them the way they want, and thus they all become useless.
What will happen then is that "compelling state interest" will cause them to say that the state's rights triumph in "hate crimes" and "affirmative action" et al....., but that the "people's rights" trump any effort to regulate destructive sexual misbehavior....or whatever else is in vouge with the elites at that moment.
All that misintepretation does is give all power to the Feds. What the ammendment actaully means is that there are other areas that the FEDS can't trample the people's rights, and there are other areas the FEDS can't trample the statet's rights.
In other words, maybe the FEDS can't violate your implied "right to privacy", but the feds have no business preventing the implied right of a state to make its own laws in regard to sexual misconduct in the name of protecting an individuals "right to privacy". The only places where the Fed can step in against a state are in the areas where the Constitution guarantees an INDIVIDUAL something- like due process.
IN all other areas THE STATES have implied rights against the FEDS, and the individual PEOPLE have implied rights against the FEDS, but the Feds should never, never, never, be allowed, as they are doing, to use the implied rights of one group against the "implied rights" of the other group to destroy the implied and stated rights of BOTH.