Clearly? Hardly.
Clearly I'm not a "scholar", LOL! But it seems to fall under "equal protection", is what I thought...if the Texas law had applied to all citizens, I think it would have been Constitutional, which is why I wish the Supremes had just stopped with that, rather than expanding on this one ruling to "discover" a "right to privacy" which very well could be used to excuse/permit any number of "bad behaviours"...not that we should have the "morals police" running around, but this broad ruling potentially opens way too many doors, not the least of which is the rights of states to make laws...
(aside to The_Pickle: if a "right" is not "enumerated", it should not be presumed to not exist, but also it shouldn't be necessarily presumed to exist, either, should it?! Isn't that why legislators legislate, with the consent of the people?!)