Yes, but we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights", which I think is Constitutionally suspect...seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...
And doesn't this ruling infringe on states' rights? Times might indeed be "changing", but other states have simply repealed various laws without interference from the Supremes. I certainly hope this federal intervention was very narrowly tailored, or we could indeed be looking down a slippery slope; Santorum made some good legal points that he was unfairly excoriated for (look for the "rerun" following this decision) and I do wonder why O'Connor reversed herself...that inconsistency is a bit "troubling"...!