Wow, that second paragraph in the quoted portion is very generic. You could write that same paragraph, verbatim, in a court decision overturning a ban on gay marriage. Do you think they intended that? It almost sounds like they're hinting at their openness to hear a case on the topic.
guy | 03.05.08 - 9:01 am | #

Based solely on the quoted paragraph (I haven't read the decision) it doesn't seem like it could be used at all to address gay marriage (as gay marriage occurs in many ways in public, unlike use of dildos in your bedroom).
In other words, this case, as the Court says, follows from Lawrence v. Texas(where Texas's ban on gay sex was overturned).
It in no way would follow from this case that the 5th Circuit would overturn a ban on gay marriage. They most likely would in fact uphold such ban, based on this case and Lawrence.
The Court differentiates between public acts and private acts; it seems to me that they'd be open to a ban on public acts and commercial acts based on so-called "public morality" (which could include gay marriage, presumably).
It's when the state decides what is or isn't appropriate for two persons to do in PRIVATE where the 5th Circuit, at least, draws the line.
Displaced New Orleanian | 03.05.08 - 12:50 pm | #