An aspirin helps a headache, and morphine helps a wound. Yet aspirin leaves the tumor, and morphine leaves the gangrene. The core issue has been sidestepped -- the Court rules on things it has no authority to and none to stop it, yet all submit.
As the Court's 2003 Texas v Lawrence struck down clear precedents of multiple millennia, and it's own clear ruling about privacy rights in 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick so too is this ruling good only until cancelled, and it may be cancelled at whimsy.
The larger issue for all of us is the historical scope of judicial review and the self-appointed ability of the Court to determine what the Constitution says. This has been going on since 1803 (Marbury v. Madison) and will not go away anytime soon. What we need is more Justices who view the Court's role as one of interpretation rather than legislation; who view words as they were written, not as they wish they were written; who view the Constitution as a completed work, not as a blank canvas.
I know that John McCain might give us Justices like that, and as hard as it is to hang your hat on a "might", I also know that Barack Obama will give us more Breyers, Ginsbergs, and Souters - at best. Scary thought, that.