It still seems to me that sodomy is almost irrelevant here -- the fundamental issue here is whether or not SCOTUS has a right to decide for the states issues that are not explicity reserved for the federal government under the Constitution. The issue could be drugs, abortion or any other flashpoint.
I personally believe that what two consenting adults do in their own home is nobody's business -- but I still oppose the idea of federal judges overruling the decision of duly elected Texas legislators.
Both
Bowers and
Lawrence discussed the history of the law of sodomy in connection with discussing the argument that there is a right that includes homosexual sodomy.
Bowers used basically honest history to show that we have a long legal tradition of prohibiting sodomy, which certainly undercuts any idea that we have a constitutional right to commit it.
Lawrence used tendentious lawyers' history to try to deny
Bowers's point.
I agree with you on the issues here. I too, left to myself, would have gotten rid of sodomy laws. I too deplore the way Lawrence got rid of them. But Lawrence's dishonest history is part of the problem.