The recent Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy law is pleasing to me but also has me in something of a quandary. It's one of those situations where you can see both sides of the fence from where you are, and you're glad things went the way they did, but, at the same time, you wish they could have gone a different route to get there.

Both sides of the fence? Well, maybe not exactly. I'm no homophobe, and I think the anti-sodomy law needed to be flushed down the crapper. In fact, I'd like to see all such 'blue laws' go the way of the dodo in my lifetime. They help no one at all, and instead tie up our attention so that we don't look at more important issues, focusing on the ever-popular pastime of poking our noses into others' bedrooms and lives. It's bad enough when the neighbors won't leave you and your lover's lives alone, but it's a lot worse when the police won't, either.

So no - I'm not at all sorry to see it go the way of all trash. My problem comes with where it all ended up, and how.

You see, I'm glad the Supreme Court struck it down, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the judicial activism that we've just seen. I always thought the High Court was supposed to be the staid, sober body who corrected us when we got a little too far ahead of ourselves. I don't, however, expect them to be the ones to leap into the fray and "fix everything" - that should be the job of the Legislatures, who then know that their attempts to do so may one day go before the High Court for judgment, and then the fun starts all over again.

In this case, the Supreme Court undercut the whole of the Texas Legislature by expanding on our supposed "right to privacy" - a concept already well-stretched out to fit all sizes in a rather procrustean manner. And while those of us who truly wish to have the government off our back - and out of our bedroom - might applaud this ruling, one wonders if we might applaud such future maneuvers if they go against what we think is "right" or "fair."

In that sense, I feel the same way about this ruling as I feel about Roe v. Wade. There is no such thing as a Constitutional right to privacy, upon which that ruling rests, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is smoking fist-sized rocks of crack. But I think that a woman should have the right to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy, and so I have shouldered my concerns, as the outcome - legalized abortion - was, and still is, acceptable to me.

But I wonder if it's right to cheer when the rules have been so clearly broken, and have to consider how much of a right I'll have to complain when, say, the Scalia court plays the game in the other direction. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

But hey - you know me, always looking for a way to turn lemons into lemonade (or at least an amusing column). So why don't we just undercut all this nonsense and put into law something that is well past its time: a real, genuine Right To Privacy - or, more properly, a right to non-interference in our lives - as a Constitutional Amendment?

I'm not much in favor of Amending our Constitution for a single issue, or on some childish, partisan whim, or to take away freedom instead of grant it. But I think we could all benefit from an Amendment based on the timeless principle of "and it harm done, do what thou wilt." Once it's properly translated into legalese as pointed, simple and graceful as the First Amendment, we'll have a real winner.

"And it harm none, do what thou wilt" should cover a lot of things. It should negate campus speech codes, blue laws and other attempts to instill virtue at gunpoint. It should guarantee the right to make your own medicinal decisions, up to and including an abortion and the right to deny traditional medicine. It should give you the right to have sex with any consenting adult you'd care to, any way you'd want to, and make certain that no cross-eyed social engineer would ever pass rules against eating steak, being a member of a certain religion or philosophical belief, or the like.

Basically, it should be a barrier against unreasonable governmental interference in our lives - something I think everyone can agree with in principle. It should say that if no one can come up with a rational, compelling argument as to why a certain activity should be illegal, or if there are rational and compelling arguments in favor of that activity, then a law prohibiting that activity will not stand up to the test of the court. Rules against sodomy do not pass muster under that rubric, and neither would a lot of "blue laws," either.

A perfect idea? No, not really - it still needs some work. But I think it would be better to have something like that clearly spelled out in the Constitution than allow various incarnations of the High Court to look for rights in the "shadows"of other Amendments to make sure certain personal prerogatives remain valid within the law. At the very least, it should settle a lot of legislative headaches, not to mention put paid to the specter of the Sodomy Patrol - something most of us would be happy to see, if we had our thinking caps on.