“To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.”
Thank you for highlighting this, Bkalron. I was beginning to feel that I was completely out of step in seeing this as the most important point about Kennedy’s opinion.
I don’t know if I’m a Conservative or not, but I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals–i.e., marriage if they so choose, sex between consenting adults should not be the government’s business, etc. I don’t know if an amendment is the proper way to ensure this (I don’t know that it’s not), but I have no philosophical opposition to this protection per se, if that’s what you mean. In fact, let me state it more emphatically: I support such a change.