1ºBob Price dude, give me a break. That's utterly ridiculous. You know what's lacking from your pedantic "analysis?" Any political will whatsoever. Precisely no one with any influence or power whatsoever is calling for or even talking about interracial marriage. Your argument suggests that the Constitution should be read opposite of how it was explicitly written, that any right not specificity guaranteed in law does not exist. More than that, it's a cynical and slanderous attempt to erect a strawman in the public discourse, to pretend that there's some effort to do something that no one is even thinking about doing, because you want to engage in Jim Crow era live action roleplay - using families like mine as your cultural and political props.
2ºJerry Bevan You are corrert it should no longer even be an issue. However, Clarence Thomas made it an issue when he publicly said after the Dobbs decision "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents." He spoke of every decision that was made on the same right to privacy that was the foundation of Roe, oh except for the Loving v. Virginia decision that protected interracial marriage--wonder why not that one....
3ºWhen the law is passed, it will be immediately challenged. My parents marriage, my marriage never demanded someone to be complicit or in agreement with anything. So I am going to sue because I am not going to be shields for White Homosexuals who wish to intentionally engage disagreement with this law. The Ninth Amendment, there is no such thing as a freedom or liberty that cancels out something established. A lot of social issues tries to define right or wrong in things that should be no one’s concern or business. Next year I want to amend the Texas Constitution to say being engaged or being ask to take a side, or be complicit with someone’s personal life a crime. Especially on the notion that someone can say this is right or wrong and try to punish you for such things. Real life, to get along, you leave your feelings, beliefs and personal life at home. That is the basis for discrimination, harassment laws, and policies. Individual freedoms and liberties have boundaries and I am not going to be a enabler for oppression.
4ºWalter Hudson Analysis of the SCOTUS Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade: “The most important aspect of the majority’s reasoning in Dobbs is its argument that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion because the abortion right is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.””
Keep in mind that while a case about abortion, Roe was generally argued under an individual’s right to privacy under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
By extension, this “reasoning” COULD be applied to ANY right not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”, INCLUDING interracial marriage which was not codified as a right of Americans under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment until the Loving v Virginia decision in 1967, a mere 55 years ago (Roe was 5 years after that and ALSO was based on the 14th Amendment). Complacency in assuming the perpetuation of established rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights seems to be a risky position given the extreme originalism of this Court.
If you think interracial marriage is safe and secure from prohibition without specific legislative action to the contrary, I’d suggest you “unbury your head from the sand” given the direction this court has taken. It would appear all bets are off in relying on previously determined Constitutional protection if it’s not specifically enumerated or, absent that, legislatively proscribed.