In its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court repeats one of the silliest, self-serving quotes from American judicial history, made infamous in Planned Parenthood v. Casey: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." In the tradition that case, the Lawrence opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, continues a defense of "liberty" which dodges the meaning and purpose of human freedom.

At issue is a Texas law unevenly directed at homosexual, not heterosexual, sodomy. The law passed through proper process of the Texas legislature, yet did not provide for equal treatment. The men subjected to the law did not allege improper notice or unfair opportunities to defend themselves. Thus, it seemed a clear violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. Yet, had the Supreme Court properly nullified the law based on unequal protection, the citizens of Texas would have retained the opportunity to correct the law.

Instead the Court wanted to preclude all states from realizing this legislative right. Kennedy admits: "Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants." So the opinion forces a broader assertion that homosexual sodomy is "protected conduct."

Had the Lawrence case turned out otherwise, how would public reaction differ? Justice Kennedy pronounced the two homosexuals who brought the case "are entitled to respect for their private lives." Imagine an opposite statement by the majority: "The petitioners are entitled to be disrespected for their private lives." The imagined outcome is as outlandish as the actual one not because one outlook is more popular or progressive. Rather, Supreme Court jurisdiction exists to test the constitutionality of laws drafted by a free society. It does not entail a right to create law when a case clashes with a justice’s personal opinion.

The citizens of a locale, through properly elected state legislatures, have the right to formulate laws within their state boundaries. Thus a variety of state laws, after due debate, impose moral restrictions on personal freedom, in effect stating: Thou shalt not steal, murder, rape, commit bigamy or incest, etc. A citizenry can vote out lawmakers for legislating stupidly or improperly. It has no such voting right regarding justices since the Supreme Court was not given the power to legislate. The authority of the justices is limited to upholding or overturning laws which substantively or in application fail on constitutional grounds.

Freedom was not created by America. The gift of human freedom, not of human making, is not to be "dispensed" as a commodity by judges. Freedom has long been recognized as an endowment of man’s creator, whether he is called Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Allah, or some other name. Man is created free for a purpose, so that he might willingly choose to do good and avoid evil. Only within the meaning and purpose of liberty does man find the fullness of human action. Freedom is not meant for personal human distortion. There is a greater goal. The natural law within guides the search for goodness as man disciplines self for greater things.