Why did Justice Clarence Thomas still vote to uphold the Texas law despite criticizing it?

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Clarence Thomas voted to uphold the Texas law despite personally criticizing it as "uncommonly silly" and stating that, were he a member of the Texas legislature, he would vote to repeal it.1

Thomas’s vote was rooted in his judicial philosophy of originalism, which holds that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the meaning understood at the time of its adoption. From this perspective, he maintained that there was no constitutional objection to the state of Texas enacting such a law.1

Furthermore, Thomas rejected the doctrine of substantive due process, which the majority used to protect the right to privacy in intimate sexual conduct. He viewed this doctrine as a "legal fiction," arguing that the due process clause refers only to procedural rights rather than fundamental or substantive rights. Consequently, while he personally disapproved of the law as a matter of policy, he concluded that the Constitution did not empower the Supreme Court to strike it down.213