And you have an excellent point. For the SCOTUS to declare state bans on buggery unconstitutional per se, would be as bogus a practice of constitutional law as Roe v. Wade was. There may be other specific problems with this law, such as an equal protection issue that may appear in that it bans unnatural acts between males but not the exact same unnatural acts between opposite sexes.
There may be other specific problems with this law, such as an equal protection issue that may appear in that it bans unnatural acts between males but not the exact same unnatural acts between opposite sexes.Equal Protection jurisprudence does NOT protect a group just because it's a group --- the group must have a special status that the Court recognizes as requiring special protection, which means discrimination on the basis of race primarily, although women get an intermediate level of protection.
Discrimination against gays only requires a "rational basis" to meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.
Meaning -- there is a rational basis to distinguish banning homosexual buggery because it is historically morally offensive.