Original sentence: Apfel, which asserted that "legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality...rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms;" Holmes v.He added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law.Justice Thomas, in a separate short opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly" (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution.State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices.State, which held that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage.Williams v
Edited sentence: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices."Williams v.Apfel, which asserted that 'legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality...rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms;' Holmes v.Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution.He also added that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law.Justice Thomas, in a separate short opinion, wrote that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly" (this statement has been criticized by some groups, but is in fact a direct - and unquestioably intentional - quote from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in the afore-mentioned Griswold v.State, which held that 'a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage.This is consistent with the overwhelming majority of Scalia's jurisprudence, which holds that the courts should be concerned with what the Constitution does say, not what Justices feel it ought to say,