Farah is only good for entertainment.
At least part of the theory in each case was that the court system needed to step in to protect some new, previously unrecognized right. The theory being that the court needed to incorporate changing social morals into a "living constitution".
But the fact that both cases had to be manufactured because nobody was prosecuting that conduct demonstrates that the system was taking into account changing values via the legislative/ececutive process. Nobody enforced those laws because the people didn't care to have them enforced. When there truly is a shift in public morals/values, there's no need for the courts to step in because those changed beliefs will be reflected in the other branches of government.
Both cases were cures for which there was no disease. Unfortunately, as happens far too often, the cures were worse than the disease because they advanced the cause of judicial activism.