Laura, because of the way that case has been reported, often in a very misleading way, you and a lot have people have been confused. The judge absolutely did not say that a drunken unconscious person could be said to have consented, or that you can legally rape an uncoscious person, or anything remotely like that. He said that the defendant could not be found guilty, because nobody was offering any evidence that the alleged victim had had been raped. In the circumstances no jury could convict, as the woman said she didn't remember what happened, and the man said she had consented. So, no evidence, no conviction. Whether that was a correct account of what actually happened is another questiom, of course. But as the prosecution offered no corroborative evidence, the case had to fail.
But the law is perfectly clear: of course you can't legally rape an drunken unconscious person.