Ross ends his most recent post with this:
Or so I would argue. Obviously, these sort of judgments are prudential rather than definitive, and I’m not sure where I would draw the line in many instances. And one appeal of setting a “consenting adults” standard on morals legislation, rather than the more latitudinarian standards I’ve suggested, is that it removes at least some of the subjective element from these debates. But I don’t have really have a problem with a standard for morals legislation that leaves vast gray areas where people can argue back and forth: That’s why we have the democratic process.
It seems to me that such vast gray areas define why morals legislation is almost the paradigmatic candidate for the kind of subsidiarity that I discussed in a prior post.
Several counties in Nevada allow legalized prostitution. As far as I’m concerned, this is just one more on a long list of reasons not to live in Nevada. (Las Vegas: Hell, with an excellent marketing department.) But, on the other hand, Nevada is one of the fastest-growing jurisdictions in the United States, so obviously millions of people disagree with me.