Should gay sodomy be illegal?

[A18]

Does anyone know if they violate substantive due process?

There is no such thing as "substantive due process"--that is nothing more than a figment of the Supreme Court's imagination. But if there were such a thing as substantive due process, then a ban on sodomy would indeed violate it (as the Supreme Court recently held in Lawrence v. Texas).

No, you're merely imagining that there is no substantive due process.

"Due process of law" means "by the law of the land."

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

[A18]

A prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is a far cry from a right to privacy.

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction, designed to prevent the bill of rights from being taken to increase the powers of the federal government.

[A18]

Where is the generic right to privacy?

[A18]

No. The very fact that they list specific rights to privacy makes it quite clear that there is no generic right to privacy anywhere enumerated.

[A18]

How do you identify this supposed 'obvious' intention? The fact that specific rights to privacy are enumerated would make it pretty clear by implication that there is no generic right to privacy.

[A18]

They are specific rights to privacy. There is no evidence of a generic right to privacy. Indeed, the text itself makes that clear by implication.

[A18]

They are specific rights to privacy. There is no evidence of a generic right to privacy. Indeed, the text itself makes that clear by implication.

Not at all.  It would be impossible to list all the rights, and they wisely did not attempt to do so.  I believe there is some famous line in there where they suggest that the enumerated rights aren't intended to imply that there may not be other rights in addition.

All that means is that the bill of rights is not to be taken to expand federal power in areas not specifically prohibited.