You are right, but it was never a right under the law.

I know you are right when you tell me to calm down. From your vantage point and understanding you have an advantage over a plebe like me. Having you, and people like you, around for commentary and analysis gives me hope that better days lay ahead.

In his Commentaries On The Laws of England, Blackstone had this to say : ” This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
…For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, …according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one. Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law.
The doctrine of the law then is this: that precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust: for though their reason be not obvious at first view, yet we owe such a deference to former times, as not to suppose that they acted wholly without consideration.”

My point, in reference to 40 years ago, was that behavioural law was, or at least appeared to be, based on divine law. Why did it change? When did equal protection come to mean behaviour.
It’s this lack of clarity, the recent judgments that have been handed down, and the general trend of the courts (at least in perception – and to some that is reality) to legalize behaviours that previously were taboo – especially the one you cite in Texas, and the one today legalizing sex with a minor. These rulings clearly break with tradition and precedent, and in effect become precedents for future rulings – as shown in the California decision (I’m assuming, based on your comments).
At what point do we stop being bystanders and actually get mad at what is happening?

The opportunity to commit immoral behavior has always been a right, thanks to the rejection of Satan’s version of the Plan of Salvation in the pre-mortal existence. Or would you prefer that everyone be forced to do good?

OK. Now that your blood pressure is back to normal, a couple of points. First, be suspicious of press stories of outrageous rulings by judges. On occasion judges do make outrageous rulings, but far more often ignorant journalists up against a deadline simply get things wrong. The judiciary is not causing the end of decency, morality, or Western civilization. Floridation is not a communist plot. Statutory rape laws remain on the books and people get prosecuted under them all the time. (In fact while I was clerking I had to deal with one case that presented the really thorny issue of what constituted attempted statutory rape.)

Judges do overreach. Some legal arguments are really bad. However, by and large judges, even the nasty liberal ones, are honorable and honest people doing their best to apply a set of laws that is often none too coherent or clear. Cut them some slack before you get out the pitch forks and torches.

Thank you for your response. My point with regard to rights was – when did marriage become a right? I didn’t mean to imply that this particular judge made it so.
The reason I ask the question is that if somebody doesn’t like tradition (particularly as it relates to behaviour), and the citizenry is not about to change the way things are, then they go flying to the courts, use an equal rights argument, and throw themselves at judges that they know are sympathetic to their case, and bingo, we have a new right.
This is pandemic now. Today I heard on the news of a 40 year old man who had sex with a mentally challenged 14 year old girl, and was found not guilty of sexual assault, rape, or any other charge. The reason – the sex was consensual. Now, it is no longer a crime to have sex with under-age youth.
It is amazing to see how judges minds work. These kids are not old enough to be held responsible for any crimes they commit, not old enough to drink, not old enough to have a drivers license, not old enough to vote – and yet they are old enough to have consensual sex.
In the days of Blackstone, and probably down until the last 40 years, Natural Law, which was considered God’s Law, was the precedent for moral behaviour. Now immoral behaviour has become a right and the people be da—- if they don’t like it because our judges have now become the arbiters of moral behaviour and everyone knows what paragons of virtue they are in society.
Forgive my anger. You wrote : “The parties invoked the California equal protection clause and he has to decide the cases using the framework that has been set up by the courts to interpret the idea of equal protection.”
This to me, is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Equal protection from what? When someone needs to be protected it is assumed that there is an attack from somewhere. Where was the attack?
By surrendering to the idea that they were under attack, a right is created. This is almost absurd. At some point a pedophile could make an argument that he/she is under attack, demand equal protection under the law, and be given a right. All they have to do is find a sympathetic judge and the ball starts rolling.

Diet Coke, Keyboard. Screen. You know the drill. ;-)

I believe that there is extensive law review literature to the effect that Justice Scalia, after putting puppies in a blender, then eats them for breakfast. So there’s one of your nine.