News revealed last week that certain Democrats responded to the publication of Justice Samuel Alito's draft decision claiming that other rights would be in jeopardy If Roe was to be overturned; in factm states may even restrict interracial marriages.
However, Justice Alito specifically distinguished abortion from other legal cases because it is a possible human life. He added: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
In a separate editorial entitled “America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade,” the Times stated:
Imagine if every state was at liberty to choose whether or not to permit Black people and whites to marry. Certain states would allow such marriages, while others wouldn't. The laws could be confusing and couples of different races will be penalized, legally confined to second-class status, based on the state in which they resided.
It's not a realistic scenario for 2022. It's because in 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the prohibition of interracial marriages, as 16 states had done, violated the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equality. “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state,” the court said when it ruled in Loving v. Virginia.
The Times tried to argue that letting the state decide their own rules could create chaos. It did not make the point that Supreme Court's decision regarding interracial marriages and other discrimination-related issues rely on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which did not constitute the foundation to an amendment to the “right to privacy” found in the “penumbra” of the Constitution to allow abortion.
Not surprisingly, the Times editorial board hasn't previously criticized “sanctuary” cities and states in their opposition to immigration law.