> Your assertion is obviously ridiculous, traveling gay men will not be arrested simply for being gay.

Your assertion is oblivious to the modern sensibilities of "Law and Order." Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex. And even when the suspicion is not found to be reasonable, there will be zero ramifications for the arresting officers.

And their assets will be forfeit, seized by the arresting agency as aiding and abetting the sodomy. What a wonderful process.

> Gay men will be arrested on "reasonable suspicion" of having had gay sex.

"reasonable" in this case meaning "visiting the home of another gay man", let alone "living with one".

Are you like....completely unaware of recent(last century) history? Like....at all??? Gay people were being arrested on charges of sodomy all the time, even if they were never caught in the act.

There is a conspicuous lack of education around modern civil rights movements. WW1 and WW2 suck the air out of the history classroom leaving room for little else. I was 35 years old when I first learned about the MOVE bombing[1] and this year years-old when I learned about the Three Articles[2] rules. Anyone else unaware of these until recently? If not, where did you learn about them?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

2. https://www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-lgbtq-drag-thre...

Yeah, I am 95% neither of these were taught where I grew up (a lefty area in a solid lefty state).

That is definitely a bigger problem, but the original poster seemed already ready to write those people off when talking about the impact of poor red state women as a sacrifice for a democratic process. I am arguing that doesn’t give the gay couple traveling through any democratic rights and absolutely does restrict their rights. The abortion bans in Texas has ample precedent for criminalizing behavior that occurred in other states. Sodomy laws also have a history of selective enforcement specifically to persecute gay people.