I was out of town so this reply is late. I agree with most of your post, but disagree with the quoted language. I would not dignify the Supreme Court's so-called 'privacy' decisions by characterizing 'privacy' as a right. 'Privacy' is just a label that the Supremes use when they decide to declare a law unconstitutional.
The proof of this statement may be found in the range of 'private' behavior that the Supreme Court would never contemplate including in this so called right. For example: the right to murder someone in the privacy of your home, the right to sell a gun to another in the privacy of your home, etc. Thus, that an act is private is not sufficient to bring behavior into this so-called right. There has to be a belief by the supremes that States should not regulate this behavior--in other words, the behavior itself has to be in some way approved by the Court.
Thus, the Supremes decide that something (eg abortion, sodomy) is OK and should not be regulated by the government and then they call it 'privacy.'
But what the supremes really declared is a right of Sodomy. Privacy is the euphemism to let them pretend (perhaps to themselves, and certainly to the public) that they don't actually approve of the behavior they have just lent constitutional status.
Don't let the left set the terms of the debate. It is not about privacy. It is about the power of six old men (and women) to act as unelected and unrecallable dictators, amending the constitution willy-nilly to suit the whims of our leftist elite. In the Lawrence case, it is about amending the constitution to conform it to the leftist elite's belief that homosexual Sodomy is cool.
Abuse of the right to privacy by the Court doesn't negate the right or the correctness of its place in American law any more than their decision to allow the sale of fake child porn negates the right to free speech and free enterprise. When the right is further stretched to allow numerous sexual deviancies and assisted suicide, it will still not negate the right.