Of course it did, you reasoning contains their logic as evidence. If that isn't precident, what is?
If this were regarded as nothing more than the right to privacy ruling that it is, then this issue would be irrelevant.
It can't be regarded as just another "right to privacy" because "right to Privacy" does not exist in my Constitution. Not in your's either. This is a further of this "new" constitution, an evolving and cementing of this "text" that was not as clearly cited before and Justice Kennedy did here.
which was just as likely before Lawrence as it is after Lawrence as it would be if Lawrence never existed....
That is the problem, people on the other side from me keep thinking "no court will go any further and endorse...whatever" You're all right. No court has to. Think of it this way; A court is not an automobile, the court is the traffic light. The lawyer is the car. This court acted like a car, and everyone is saying they won't drive us any further. You're probably right. Unfortunately, this ruling does not abolish all lawyers, and they still want to drive any where they can. So they will be driving alot further because SCOTUS just removed another stop light for the States.
You'll have to clarify what you mean, because it's not self-evident.
It can't be regarded as just another "right to privacy" because "right to Privacy" does not exist in my Constitution.
It can still be regarded as just another "right to privacy" regardless of whether it exists in your Constitution. An Right to Privacy ruling - even pretending it's not based upon the Constitution - is still not an Equal Protection ruling. As I've stated, this would require an Equal Protection ruling, which Lawrence was not.
That is the problem, people on the other side from me keep thinking "no court will go any further and endorse...whatever"
I have no doubt whatsoever that a court will go further, I just don't think it will happen soon. Even with this FMA, it will still happen, but much slower (whenever it's repealed - in a generation or two).