It should be, it’s taken power from the state and what was thought to be obscure slippery slope arguments are know very realistic.
That's not good enough. They could have written a decision based on "equal protection" because the law did not apply to heterosexuals as well. I would have understood that.
They didn't, they used Roe, bad case law, as a precednt for a privacy right nowhere to be found in the COnstitution. The Constitution is amendable, taht's how you change it.
I can't stand judicial activism, it reeks of elitisma nd hubris and pisses me off.