I was not critiquing the case. I was arguing for the constitutionality of the statute. But as you have so effectively shown, the statue was a piece of legislative sausage. It's constitutionality was questionable. I probably can't criticize any justice for whichever side they came down on this one. It was a clear matter of constitutional interpretation in light of the equal protection clause. I doubt that anyone needed to point to any "penumbras" to reach a decision.
And from a strictly Calvinist (and sovereign Arminian) point of view, it was THE decision that God sovereignly ordained (for good or for bad) for our country at this time.