He must have foreseen the advent of mass body piercing. :-)
There are two parts of the argument, and i understand that even though you have argued some "right to privacy," you have stuck more to the 14th Amendment side of it--namely, that if sodomy is illegal for homosexuals, why not heterosexuals too?
As a policy matter, my personal opinion is that it should be illegal for both. As I was telling tpaine hundreds of replies ago, we would prevent a lot of babies from getting AIDS and other horrible diseases if we actually stopped the spread of STD's through sodomy, which is probably the most risky activity for spreading STDs.
However, because homosexuals are not a protected class under the 14th amendment--and in fact are not properly a "class" at all, but rather a group of people who like to engage in certain kinds of activity--it seems unnecessary to advance a constitutional objection to the Texas law.
Think of it this way:
John belongs to a group of people who really like to do X.
Jim belongs to a group of people who really like to do Y.
The state legislature passes a law outlawing X.
So, does that give John an equal protection claim?
Of course not.
So the law should be changed, IMHO, but let's leave the constitution out of it. Let Texans change their own law.
Otherwise, you'll have gay marriage very quickly, since the argument will fly right through the court that state marriage laws are discriminatory, and equal protection requires it.