Hello, you very intelligent individual. If the sodemy laws were "never enforced", then why did the Supreme Court have to say they were unconstitutional? That would prove that the laws were enforced.
Also, I do have a small amount of legal training, but, I must not be as smart as you, so I will give up. You at closed minded and obviously do not I drstand what freedom and liberty mean. Also, what the majority wants doesn't make it legal. The majority in the 1960s still wanted blacks segregated. Was that legal, or constituional?
#1 - I never said "never" in regards to the enforcement of the laws against sodomy. So you just misrepresented my statements - that is called dishonesty.
I said it was rare, and that is a FACT. In point of fact it has been very rare throughout American history and especially rare the last 100 years.
In terms of the Lawrence case #1: most commentators have always suspected some kind of strange set up with regard to that case in terms of getting it into the federal court system. But #2, regardless, the point I was making is that it is a FALSE STRAW MAN to say that homos/lesbos need any protection for what they do in *private* because Lawrence already established that protection.
And homosexual marriage is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MATTER - it is a PUBLIC and societal wide matter. And the majority of voters in the majority of states have rejected it.
Take a look at Pat Buchanon's article on the problem with the judicial oligarchy in this country:
http://buchanan.org/blog/judicial-dictatorship-7010He is spot on.
P.S. Your small amount of legal training is obviously very small when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and American legal history and how the history of the West and England flows into that history. I doubt you have ever read Cooke or Blackstone. You cannot even make a distinction between the now clearly established right of homos to have homo sex in private and homos demanding the right to be "married" and to adopt and to force everyone else to submit to their demands.
