Lawrence vs. Texas on Personal Animus as Basis for Legislation: Is this a Critique of Expressionism?

Lawerence v. Texas found that personal animus is not a sufficient reason to justify regulation of an activity; a personal (preferential?) or moral judgment of an activity does not render it subject to government legislation.  

This finding seems to recall, and may be equivalent to, the idea of mine that the expressive function of the law ought to be of a lower priority than other legal functions, especially policy outcome.  In general, this principle on which this case was decided seems to me to be similar to the derision for the expressive function of political action that I have often articulated.

Danger of Identitarian Deference: After its Cause Wins, Does it Reverse its Position?

Having a rule of identitarian deference or other standard of identity politics under which some people's view is given more weight than others in accordance with who has the least power is dangerous because, once the disadvantaged cause in question that righteous/virtuous people are fighting for and for the purpose of fighting for which identitarian deference is established/practiced gains support and power and begins to win and becomes dominant, then it wouldn't lose the benefit vantage of identity, and opposition what in fact. 

In concrete terms, for example, Emma Sulkowicz has more power in some ways than Paul Nungesser; after all, one was supported by a multitude including elected officials and the other was not. Similarly, racial minorities have more social power and white supremacists and the KKK do at this time in this country. 

Should the arguments between these camps then really be settled by, or addressed by giving any (argumentative/discursive) benefit/advantage to, privileging the side with less power?

Equality and Democracy and Myth of the Medals

Oberlin radicals' and other student activists' proposing to eliminate grades below Cs, for instance, are perfect examples for Platonists to point to in order to show how some political proposals to promote equality and democracy (which are the same thing, since the political equality of each person would preclude any from having more power than another, a condition with which only equal votes for all--democracy--can be consistent) could hurt/injure the polity:

Allowing the silver and bronze to rise above their stations, including into the ruling gold and thereby undermining the quality of governance, as well as wasting some potential ability in roles it isn't needed.

It's overall a great illustration of what the Ancients and the Founders feared with regard to rule of the mob.