The analogy is PERFECT! And the analysis that follows from it is exactly right. I would venture, though, that somewhat less than half of FReepers agree. Real conservatives (i.e., those who would preserve our social fabric) are a distinct minority, even here.
No, I am not, because a state has an interest in keeping him from violating the rights of others, which in this case is me. Rights are not unlimited, but the state must have a legitimate reason for limiting them. In this case, it's easy, just as your free speech rights do not include bomb threats or crying fire in a crowded theater.
The "right to privacy" is abstract and difficult to define--which is why it wasn't included in the BoR.
A couple of points. First, look at the 4th Amendment. If a de facto right to privacy did not exist, why the 4th Amendment? No right to privacy means the state has no obligation to respect privacy. So obviously there is a right to privacy, which can be infringed only upon a legitimate probable cause and legal warrant. And of course, the founding fathers knew that not all rights were enumerated, so the 9th Amendment was put in to ensure that those rights not specifically mentioned were nonetheless protected.
The notion that local govenment doesn't have the power to enforce local standards of decency as agreed upon by the majority of citizens is a liberal-tarian notion which had its coming-out party in the 1960s. I reject it completely.
Oh, I know you do, as do most who believe that their religious convictions belong in the laws of the land. Conservatives generally reject that. Local standards of decency the good citizens of many states agreed upon were rather draconian for the century preceeding the 1960s. For example, what possible good to society comes from miscegination laws? How about segregation laws? What about laws preventing birth control? We could develop quite a laundry list, but suffice is to say that any law which infringes on someone's rights, without a compelling reason, are unconstitutional.