The radical homosexuals are worried about their "right to privacy" being taken away, should a strict constructionist or two be appointed to the Supreme Court. They want their "anything goes" society protected -- going beyond abortion "rights" to include any imaginable perverted sexual behavior. Their praise goes to Justice Kennedy's ludicrous opinion in the ruling overturning the Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003):
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
This is the kind of "thinking" the radicals want to preserve in our courts! Think of the possibilities this legal philosophy opens up, beyond state-sanctioned sodomy:
Polygamy -- It may be a new generation's "greater freedom".
Lowering the age of sexual consent -- Children need "greater freedom", too. Who's to say 12 is too young to consent? We wouldn't want kids to be "oppressed", or suppress their sexual feelings.
And who's to deny NAMBLA members their "greater freedom", their absolute need, to do it with young boys? We should not "oppress" their minority view.
Sexual domestic violence -- It's not hard to imagine boundaries coming down here.... One person's sexual abuse may be another person's sadistic sexual pleasure. Can the sadist be denied his "greater freedom"? How will the line be drawn, if both parties entered the relationship willingly? (Remember, first-class Boston hotels are already hosting "leather & bondage" conventions.)
