Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
I only have a casual knowledge of those cases. They both were about consensual BJs -- in the first case (Bowers v. Hardwick), the "liberal" supremes upheld laws against BJs (sodomy) -- even when the police acted with EXTRAORDINARY contravention of all expectations of freedom and privacy.

17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas (land where free thinkers and lovers of freedom are raised) the supremes revisited essentially the same issues and decided that --- ahhh --- maybe you Texans are wrong.

Scalie angrily wrote a dissent to Lawrence where among other things he warned "that the Court's decision means that state criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity cannot survive."

(what was that line from An Officer & A Gentleman:
"only 2 things come from Texas steers and q****s" ???)
For the most part you are correct. I just wasnt sure that when you said BJ that it also included sodomy (we dont need to get into details.)

Scalia's dissent is the classic "slippery slope argument".