This is much more worse than using the argument of privacy. At least about the privacy many people who still want to adhere to the rules of morality, can agree that policing peoples bedrooms is not a good thing.
But when the issue is defined in the context of liberty - the vices (probably others are in the queue) acquire the ultimate protection - even to be publicly displayed, to be celebrated and promoted by the state. The liberty itself gets redefined as a licence.
Other quote from Kennedy's statement:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." ( AP, Sat, Jun 28, 2003, by Anne Gearan
"Full right to engage in their conduct" without limits of privacy?
We have successfully avoided since 1793 the disaster that befell France, because we have not accepted any method to determine the "general will" except the election of our representatives and latterly our senators.
Now, Anthony Kennedy and the rest of the Committee of Public Safety can discern the will of the people by consulting "references" to an "emerging awareness".
As I posted before, this is very bad, and it is bad irregardless of the result.