[Mike Irwin]

"I don't believe that all consentual behaviour between consenting adults is a matter enjoying categorical constitutional protection, but that is beside the point."

Actually, you're missing the point. The early Supreme Court ruling held that it was legal to criminalize private activity between one group of people while maintaining as legal the exact same activity between another group of people.

The court 17 years later found that to be an incorrect determination as on its very face it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourth Amendment in much the same manner that Plessy vs. Ferguson "separate but (inherently un)equal" ruling was later found to be in part a violation of the Fourth Amendment in Brown vs Board of Education -- yes, that's another case of the court overturning itself (more than 50 years later).

But, as I have repeatedly said, none of those cases are analogous to MacDonald in that none attempted to fall back to and verify ORIGINAL FRAMER INTENT as the basis for the ruling.

Please read that again -- ORIGINAL FRAMER INTENT.

I've been looking all morning, and I have yet to find a case in which a later court overturned a previous court's ruling when that earlier ruling was an attempt to fall back to and verify ORIGINAL FRAMER INTENT.

ORIGINAL FRAMER INTENT.

Just so we don't lose the salient point of my argument, again, ORIGNAL FRAMER INTENT.