George:

I assume that you are aware that the Supreme Court, 6-3, has invalidated sodomy laws governing consensual conduct between consenting adults...

The AP story that I read notes that this law almost certainly invalidates Virgniia's consensual sodomy law (I agree). It probably also invalidates the law that punishes fornication between consenting adults. It would not, at least on its face, invalidate any law pertaining to sexual conduct with a minor, or any sexual conduct with anyone not able to freely give consent, or adultery statutes (because the state has some interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage).

Predictably, the three dissenters were Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.

From the NYT:

"As word of the ruling spread in San Francisco, a group gathered at the corner of Castro and Market Streets, where a rainbow flag — a symbol of the gay movement for the last 25 years — had regularly flown.

"A small chorus of gay military veterans sang the national anthem as the rainbow flag was gently lowered, replaced with an American one."

THAT'S why this decision was fundamentally correct.

The Court also ruled, 5-4, that a government cannot extend the statute of limitations for a crime once the statute of limitations has expired. For example, if there is a statute of limitations requiring prosecution within 5 years, and in 2001, the legislature passes a law extending the statute of limitations to 20 years, someone who committed a crime in 1990 could not now be prosecuted. The Bush administration had supported the right of governments to do this, in part because part of the USA PATRIOT Act did exactly that -- it tried to retroactively extend the statute of limitations for crimes such as terrorism. So now we have the Supreme Court in effect holding unconstitutional part of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, June 26 & 7, 2003)