Justice is blind
The US House of Representatives has passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which offers protection for interracial and same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, Democrats are concerned that the US Supreme Court could roll back same-sex marriage rights.
The Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage in 2015. However, a more conservative version of the court ruled against the constitutional right to abortion only this year.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion [on repealing abortion rights] last month that other rulings on matters such as same-sex marriage and contraception should be reconsidered. But Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, specified in his ruling that "this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right". Republicans have poured scorn on Democratic claims that interracial marriage could now be threatened, pointing out that Justice Thomas is a black man married to a white woman.
Republicans' dismissal of Democrats' concerns seems to suggest that interracial marriage is safe
from Justice Thomas, or else his own would be affected. This in turn implies that he might've voted against abortion rights because Mrs Thomas is no longer a member of the relevant demographic, so the issue doesn't directly impact him.
I was under the impression that the Supreme Court ruled on the interpretation of the law as it stands, influenced solely by ideological and religious bias, not as it might affect its members personally. Otherwise, they'd better hope that Mr Justice Thomas' marriage is a happy one. (wink)