Not sure the SCOTUS can "outlaw" anything, but can make it so that protections are no longer guaranteed. For instance, they didn't outlaw abortion. They took away the guaranteed right to it in all states. Now, individual states can outlaw it, the Congress of the USA can outlaw it nationwide, and some states can keep it legal. As I understand things.
At some point in time, it is possible. It will be gay marriage next, and then outlawing trans surgeries, and then it will swing around to the "keep to your kind" stuff. I don't know if people will go for it, but you only need about a third of a state to do it and the reasoning for it being unconstitutional has already been weakened. The court has chosen to rule illogical based on politics, and in so doing undermined decades of precedent. But you know, I'm just so wild and crazy. Not like I haven't heard many people of every background essentially condemn interracial marriages... oh wait. I have.
No, I don't think any state will outlaw interracial marriages. I think it is a too integrated (pardon the pun) now, and cannot be made illegal anywhere. I think some people may try, but no on will do this with any kind of vigor. I think gay marriage is in danger, trans rights are in danger and certain religious issues could arise.
Depends on how far we travel theocracy road. I'm telling you if we continue on this course all bets are off.
The trans surgery thing will be interesting as well. I don't think there's much of an appetite for outlawing trans surgeries as a whole. The right's focus is mostly on children and the age at which these things can start happening. Some would argue that the current court is fixing failings of a past court. People on both sides of the aisle have been criticizing Roe since it came into being.
People should start pushing now to get this stuff included in Constitutional Amendments. Scoff at it all you want. Say it will never happen. The later you start, the longer it will take. And if abortion had been approached this way from the beginning, we may not be in this situation right now. Isn't that what RBG basically said?
If you put your faith in people, prepare to be disappointed. Interracial marriage is not a legal right, if SCOTUS rules consistently. It's simply not illegal. These two things aren't the same, and treating them as the same is folly. I don't know why anyone would trust that anything not explicitly allowed was safe, anymore.
How can anyone push for anything when people like you argue all day that something that isn't a constitutional amendment won't be overturned? But yes, all of these things should be made Constitutional amendments, since it's impossible to have any form of civil rights without an amendment, apparently. The mistake people made with Roe v. Wade was accepting that it was settled law. It wasn't, and now that will need to change. It's unlikely to happen, and more likely to be federally banned. The mistake people make with Obergefell was accepting that it was settled law, because of Roe. It isn't, and now that will need to change. It's likely to be overturned. It is possible it is federally banned. The mistake people make with Loving is accepting that it is settled law. (Because 94%!) It isn't, and is being argued that it doesn't need to be changed...
Like I said there would be war and the small amount of people that would agree to do this would regret it. Imo
So basically, we need to pass about 178056 constitutional amendments because SCOTUS has decided the current legal protections for various groups can be completely thrown out the window, not because of law, but because they would rather force their theological doctrine on the masses.