I'd contend that mandating same-sex marriage makes far more sense as an application of equal protection than mandating lax abortion laws does as an application of due process.
Substantive due process is an awfully shaky judicial notion. Unfortunately, it's also the only possible basis for a number of rulings that strike me as morally imperative from a left-wing standpoint. I understand why you wouldn't include Roe v. Wade among those, but surely you would Lawrence v. Texas?
I take O'Connor's position in her Lawrence concurrence that the decision should have been reached on equal protection grounds instead.
O'Connor's position in her
Lawrence concurrence would have upheld
Bowers v. Hardwick and allowed most sodomy laws to stand as long as they were facially neutral as to sexual orientation, unlike the Texas law.
