The right to privacy does exist as a matter of common law, and as a legal principle. For example, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ..." The Third Amendment exists because of a right to private enjoyment of one's property. The Fifth Amendment respects the privacy of individuals accused of a crime. And so on.
That the Court has erroneously expanded the common law principle to protect abortion does not diminish that principle, nor its applicability in this case. There is little if any compelling interest on the part of the state to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their own quarters. There is a HUGE implication to ruling otherwise, namely that no citizen can act, even if no harm arises and he is within the precincts of his own home, in a manner the state disapproves.
I don't need or want the state approving or disapproving of my private sexual behavior. It is none of the state's business. The Court wisely found this to be true.
I find your history of the privacy issue to be substantially accurate. My problem with your position that the right of privacy can be applied to protect sodomy arises out of my fear that yours is a purely subjective application of the principle. Why should there be a greater right to have privacy in one's home than in one's body? And if you cannot tell me why, then I think you have to reverse your position on abortion.
