I don't recall starting a thread here. But in any case, there is no hypocrisy in any of my posts, so there is no need for me to answer anyone's assertions about it--even if they were expressed coherently enough to understand. When you claim I "emphasized the unenforceability of law," I don't know what you are talking about. I think I remarked that a law which has been held unconstitutional is invalid and unenforceable because someone (who knows why) had questioned that. But if so, I was only restating what should have been obvious.
I support morals laws. I believe, just as most people in every state in this country have believed from the beginning, that promoting majoritarian morality is a legitimate government interest. If most people in a state believe public nudity, prostitution, bigamy, bestiality, mothers marrying their daughters, and so on are immoral and unacceptable, they should be able to make laws prohibiting those things. The view Justice Stevens expressed to the contrary in his dissenting opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which Justice Kennedy signed onto in Lawrence, was dead wrong and destructive to our society. I hope one day Justice Ginsburg (whose views I usually disagree with but whose integrity and reasoning I respect) will retire, an originalist justice will be appointed to replace her, and the Court will reverse its position on that.
Justice Stevens was a maverick who did some damage with his wacky notions when he was on the Court, but most of it can still be undone. He was famously the author of a majority opinion which held that carbon dioxide--you know, that stuff we all exhale with every breath, and that puts the sparkle in our Diet Pepsi--is a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. As someone who once studied the Clear Air Act and its history pretty thoroughly, I know that is utter nonsense. But it is vintage Stevens.