Nor am I, but acts that achieve an exercise of personal license by way of assuming federal power and policy are similarly egregious. Thomas hit the nail on the head with this one. The Texas law was silly and, by existing, generally was not enforced nor was it hurting anybody (note: it is a little known fact that the two homos involved in this case's prosecution set themselves up to be caught and prosecuted so they could challenge the law in court). But overturning it by way of a federal infringement upon the rights of a state achieves that end by an illegitimate means, thus rendering both acts problematic.
The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.
I don't recall anybody supporting the idea of segregation in any matter as it relates to this case. You brought that issue up yourself in the last post and still have not demonstrated its relevance.