Yes, but we're confusing "privileges and immunities" in general with specific "rights", which I think is Constitutionally suspect...seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court should not be issuing rulings at all on sexual practice unless you're going to say sexual conduct is somehow a protected right and privilege specified in the Constitution...
And doesn't this ruling infringe on states' rights? Times might indeed be "changing", but other states have simply repealed various laws without interference from the Supremes. I certainly hope this federal intervention was very narrowly tailored, or we could indeed be looking down a slippery slope; Santorum made some good legal points that he was unfairly excoriated for (look for the "rerun" following this decision) and I do wonder why O'Connor reversed herself...that inconsistency is a bit "troubling"...!
I think that's exactly what they ARE saying...
I don't think we are. Either that or the author of the 14th amendment was similarly confused. Rights, as the term is used in the constitution, are nothing more than "imunities" from government action. "privileges and immunities" was a term of art used to describe rights protected from infringment, The drafter of the 14th amendment, Representative Bingham, , stated : "that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." He then proceeded to read those eight amendments. See Halbrook
The opponents of the 14th amendment also understood the clear meaning, and that it did indeed restrict some powers of the states.