Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”.
Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
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...