Comment on Rick's Posting

I agree with Rick's central point.

It is correct for a court to say the following: "That the political majority's morality supports challenged legislation does not entail that the legislation is constitutional." This proposition may be what O'Connor was trying to articulate in Lawrence. (Is that too charitable?) In any event, the truth of the proposition is easy to discern. For example, that the political majority's morality condemns interracial marriage does not entail that antimiscegenation legislation is constitutional. The point here is that the political majority's morality may itself be constitutionally offensive.

By contrast, it is incorrect for a court to say the following: "That the political majority's morality is the sole support for challenged legislation entails that the legislation is unconstitutional." I agree with Rick that a court should be embarassed to affirm that proposition.

Michael