Some judges have actually declared a state's sodomy laws unconstitutional if those laws only target homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy. Those judges apparently are not discerning enough to see a significant difference between the two.

Next I suppose those "brilliant" judges will rule that a French kiss between a non-blood-related man and woman is no different than a French kiss between an adult brother and adult sister or a French kiss between two men or a man French kissing a little girl or, to get a little ridiculous---and to illustrate the absurd with the absurd---a human French kissing an animal. Clearly, not all French kisses are equal. Similarly, not all sodomitic acts are equal either.

There are big and obvious differences between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity (and incestuous activity and pedophilic activity and human-animal sex). We seem almost forced to conclude that judges who cannot see those obvious differences must be blinded by pro-homosexual prejudices. Why else would they make such irrational and ridiculous declarations? Why else would these regressive judges be trying to take this country back thousands of years to Sodom?

And regarding questionable rulings by some judges, we should probably recall that many judges are nominated/appointed by politicians. We know how corrupt politicians can be. Should we be surprised if corrupt politicians occasionally appoint corrupt judges?

Incidentally, we do not mean to imply by the above that we recommend heterosexual sodomy. To the contrary. The anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal because of homosexual sodomy. Sodomy can damage the anus and rectum. We are just stressing the difference between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy, and stressing that heterosexual activity is not illegalizeable---generally speaking---while homosexual activity is definitely illegalizeable.