As I've oft-stated in opinion pieces I've written, I am not a lawyer. But, despite what the majority of practicing lawyers in this country may think, I am also not required to be a lawyer to understand law or the U.S. Constitution.

Last week, The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that struck down a law in Texas that prohibited sodomy between homosexuals, citing their contention that a person's "right to privacy" supercedes the right of the state to control what one does in the bedroom with one's consenting homosexual partner.

The typical conservative/religious Republican pundit response was to challenge the USSC's fabrication of the concept of the "right to privacy" in any reading of the Constitution. This same challenge has been uttered many times over many years with regard to a woman's right to have an abortion being rooted in her right to privacy as well. I heard it this past Sunday morning on FOX News Sunday from Bill Kristol. Same 'ole tired utterance of "nowhere in the Constitution does it say someone has the right to privacy" with regard to the Texas law being struck down.

And, Kristol is correct, as have been the many pundits before him and as I will witness many more after him, no doubt. There is no "Constitutional right" spelled-out.

But, the "right to privacy" is not required to BE spelled-out in our Constitution because it is one of those "unalienable rights" granted by our Creator. Before the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional concept of the birthright to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because the Founding Fathers knew these rights to be granted to us as human beings. So must it be so for the right to privacy.

Before I continue, let me clarify what actions are not "okay" to be done in the privacy of one's home:

a) Beastiality. Why? Because since animals are not recognized as a legal entity, they cannot give their "consent."

b) Child molestation. Why? Because children under the age of 18 are not recognized by the law as being legally capable of consenting to sex (minor Georgia note here: Why is Jim Martin sitting in ANY position in Georgia government? This sleazy Democrat tried to lower the age of consent in Georgia to 12 years old in 1999)

c) Necrophilia. A dead person cannot give consent (though, there do appear to be some folks who are brain dead who are still procreating...).

Now, if you want to argue that no one has a right to privacy in a free society, then may I suggest that you do not believe in the true concept of liberty? In fact, if you are one of my many friends, acquaintenances (and a few enemies) who wish to argue steadfastly that the state has a right to insert themselves into the private lives of consenting adults, then I will buy you copies of George Orwell's 1984 and send it to you to read, page by page.

Because it is only in a totalitarian state where the right to privacy has no meaning. Where jack-booted thugs can kick your door in at any time. Where the dominant religion would have the right to dictate how you live your life and worship. Where your neighbors are allowed to observe and know exactly what goes on in your house. Where the state should, for all practical purposes, ban the use of door locks. You don't have a right to privacy, so why do you need a door lock? (What's that?...You want a lock because you don't trust the state? Shame on you! We'll introduce your head to a cage full of rats...)

In fact, if you are one of those folks who believe society has a higher right to dictate what goes on between consenting adults than the adults themselves, then you should be all in favor of passing laws that plant a camera in EVERYONE'S house, in every room, right? If people do not have the right to privacy, then society must have the right, nay, the DUTY, to monitor every human being...that is what your argument must be.

In a free society, of which America boasts itself to be, a person's right to privacy is an unalienable right that cannot be interferred with by any other law. To do so would be to violate the very heart and fabric of why this country was created and why it endures. Think about that before you next open your mouth about "there oughtta be a law against..."