OK, yea, that part of it makes sense then. I have read through the entire text twice now, and I cannot really make sense of what he is trying to say. I don't think that if the Supreme Court says, "Americans have an inalienable constitutional right to have consensual sex in their homes," that it would make all consensual sex legal. The solution to the problems you mention (incest, pedophilia, beastiality, polygamy) could be excluded by eliminating minors and abuse from this USSC grant of consensual sex rights. Why group homosexual activity with those acts named above which are clearly crimes against society.
I totally agree with him about marriage being about a man a woman, with children and all; I just think his statements of being pro-homosexual people at the same time he's anti-homosexual activities (of adults) in a lame nuance, and it's really not the business of government.
As for the Jordan's, this is one over-the-top political couple-- send them back to Dakota with Daschle in 2004.
As Justice Brandeis said: "We all have the right to be left alone." I can't imagine that much government control (read interference) could ever be a good thing.
As Justice Brandeis said: "We all have the right to be left alone." I can't imagine that much government control (read interference) could ever be a good thing.