Any of you got the guts to read the 52 page transcript of the oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas?
Come on troops, show you're serious about this whole Gay Rights thing.
Update: I just did it. Because I kick ass. If you're reading it, Justice Scalia is the bigot asking most of the questions of the plaintiff, and Justice Breyer is the one tearing the State apart.
Rosenthal (DA, Harris County, TX): Texas has the right to set moral standards and can set bright line moral standards for its people. And in the setting of those moral standards, I believe that they can say that certain kinds of activity can exist and certain kinds of activity cannot exist.
(Now sometimes the other Justices interject, particularly Scalia defending Texas, so keep that in mind if the questions seem to be contradicting each other occasionally.)
Justice Breyer: Could they say, for example, it is against the law at the dinner table to tell really serious lies to your family?
Rosenthal: Yes, they can make that a law, but there would be no rational basis for the law.
Breyer: Oh, really. It's very immoral. I mean, I know there's certainly - it's certainly immoral to tell very serious harmful lies to your own family under certain circumstances and around the dinner table, some of the worst things can happen.
But - the - the - so Texas could go right in there and any kind of morality that they think is just immoral or bad, cheating, perhaps. What about rudeness, serious rudeness, et cetera?
Matthew Carroll-Schmidt at 4:28 PM