"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."This is excellent news, and implies Lawrence is as significant as Randy Barnett suggested. A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.
Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.
Since Ron Paul is all about amending the Constitution to fight the hordes of pregnant brown women streaming over the Mexican border, why hasn't be proposed an amendment explicitly saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as much as to the federal government?
Think what that would do to ensure freedom of the individual. Think about what an amendment enshrining Barnett's "presumption in favor of liberty" into law would do.
As a libertarian, I'm glad Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination is circling the drain.
Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste