Do you really think they wouldn't still overturn if it was decided based on equal protection? We should not fall into the trap of deifying the court. They are not above politics and they never have been.
And they didn't rule against it because of the privacy angle. They ruled against it because they are trying to destroy the jurisprudence of substantive due process and unenumerated rights, because it serves their reactionary politics.
And they didn't rule against it because of the privacy angle. They ruled against it because they are trying to destroy the jurisprudence of substantive due process and unenumerated rights, because it serves their reactionary politics.