Wobbling: Over at the Agitator, Radley has revised and extended his remarks on Lawrence, moving closer to the Thomas dissent. His remarks are worrisome, from a libertarian perspective. In his comments section, a fellow called Bruce says: "I'm willing to believe I'm missing something, but I just don't see where any level of government has a clear Constitutional justification for prohibiting private actions of any sort at all between consenting competent adults." Here's what I added:

I don't think you're missing anything, Bruce. That, I think, is the import of the 9th Amendment and unenumerated rights, and it's the argument libertarians should be making. The spirit (and the letter, arguably) of the Constitution, particularly the 9th Amendment, seems to be that the onus is on the government to make the case for any incursion into the realm of personal liberty. Moral disapproval doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry to see Radley going squishy on this one. We don't have to "invent" a right of privacy. That right is there, though unenumerated, until government provides a clear and constitutional justification for limiting it. To think otherwise is simply to gussy up the logic of statism.