Neither of them was "unconstituntional." It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. By definition, their interpretation is correct, as the Constitution grants them that authority.
When you have phrases like "due process" in the docuement, you are going to have humans interpreting what that means. There really isn't a well defined meaning for many of these Constitutional phrases.
Your idea that the Constitution is some perfectly clear inerrant document is naive. People on this very forum, kissing cousin conservatives, disagree on its meaning.
Sigh, I'm having a little trouble believing that you are serious. But I'll play along...
1. I think that you are confusing their authority with their duty. Their authority means that their rulings become the law of the land. Their duty is to interpret the law and the constitution. Just because they made a ruling does not mean that they fulfilled their duty. The word interpret does not mean that the court is suppose to read into the constitution whatever they want. The constitution does not contain a right to privacy. It is something the court created in order to exceed their authority.
2. The fact that people disagree is nothing new. People are ignorant, people are prejudiced. So what, this is not a matter of opinion. Words have meanings and context. The constitution is not some mysterious oracle that rewrites itself every few years. The fact of the matter is that for a couple of centuries now states have had the right to outlaw behavior deemed harmful to the community. The supreme court affirmed this right just 18 years ago. This is not something new. They've already decided what the constitution said on the matter. Now they reversed themselves. Aside from public opinion (a non-factor), what changed??
3. I've never held that the constitution is inerrant. We have the Amendment process in order fix and update the constitution as we need. And even if the constitution is not perfect, or if a law is bad, so what! It's not the job of the Supreme Court to fix the constitution or rewrite bad law. The court exists to uphold the constitution of the US. Their job is to determine if a law is constitutional.
4. You are holding what the liberals' call the living constitution position.
5. You can have the last word, I'm growing tired of this topic. I'll just "interpret" any response you might make as agreeing with me 100 percent.