The thing I'm saying won't be done is states outlawing interracial marriage. You're saying that people are saying it should be done. Who is saying that? Point to an elected official of any consequence. Singular. One. I don't think one would really matter, but I also don't think one exists. That post doesn't answer the question. You've been saying everything is based on due process, so everything must go if one goes. That doesn't make sense if the one that went was not based on equal protection in the same way that one or multiple of the others were. It's a different clause. I don't care if one Justice is saying marriage has to be revisited. That means [uck fay] all. Show me where Obergefell is based on the Equal Protection Clause in a similar way to Loving. I don't think you can because I don't believe it is. That doesn't mean a future ruling couldn't push it that way. As much as people want to pretend that these justices are all insane, bible thumping righties, the record doesn't reflect that. Are we forgetting that Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers gay and transgender people?