I read that and am currently charitably assuming that he meant man and wife being able to enjoy the act together without state intervention because the alternative is pretty terrible. 

“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife – and the right of the state to monitor that,” he said. “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”

Really?

You don't think the right to life or freedom from torture might be more obviously fundamental?

Or the right of a woman to say no to sex with her husband, for that matter?

Jesus wept.

He was merely making a point that it should be properly discussed in front of the court rather being decided without a full hearing.  Clumsy choice of words but I think the right decision.