It's hardly speculation. Go read Clarence Thomas' opinion. He did not mince words.
'Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.'
It really shows that he decided he wanted to overturn Roe, worked backwards and then realized this decision might affect him.
Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
How can one then go after same-sex marriage?
Keep in mind that this is only Thomas who is publicly stating this position.
The basis for Obergefell is much broader than what was just overturned with roe, and so I would consider it on firmer legal footing than roe was, alito alluded to as much in his opinion.
At the same time all it takes is 5 votes to win a case, so who knows.
> "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sft...