He's already come out and said so, these Extreme Right Ass-Holes are trying to force their will on everyone.  

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage rulings

Clarence Thomas mentions Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as examples of rulings that could be reconsidered

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-reconsider-contraception-gay-marriage-rulings

0

That's what happens when you Libs think the Supreme Court is a legislature 

comments from below the article you poste

• AnnArbo160
  
  
  This is what happens when you over reach, and look to an activist judge, instead of legislation to solve issues. Politicians never want to propose, debate, support and go on record with a vote, they look for judges to do the work they are ...See mo
• 
  nrapatriot50
  
  It's about time some of those dubious opinions are reexamined by serious legal scholars like Justice Thomas. Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson were also flawed decisions.
  
  
• �🤑ReparationsFromAfrica🤑36m agoOf course. Just look at gun legislation. Pelosi has been Speaker at some point for every President going back to Bush. She only introduces their anti-gun legislation when Republicans control the Senate. Obviously because she knows it won't go through, so she 'postures' to the low information base. Pelosi could have introduced HR-5087, which essentially bans all firearms but single shooters, during the first two years of Obama, or even now, but she only pushes for these things when Repubs control the Senate and can block it. Democrats will lose bigly on the ban all guns issue and they know it.Rep
• 
  
  HadEnough
  
  
  The Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench.  They look at legislation through the eyes of the Constitution to determine its validity.  If it doesn't pass Constitutional scrutiny it's overturned.  So simple even a democrat should understand.
  
  Yes Jetsheep 
  you can vote for legislatures that endorse your crap if you can find them.
• its you be and creepy Joe's fault 
• you have pulled the tail of the dragon, and so this is what happens.
• Creepy Joe is to blame for radicalizing the leftist nature of the present government 
• And you voted for it!
• useful idiot

The first problem is terminology and definitions.

Does a marriage have to preformed by clergy within the faith's standards and practices? Some pastors are authorized by the state to perform legal, contractual 'marriages'. Even same sex marriages. The church determines who and what can be a marriage. It gets sorta fuzzy with some religious dogma, some fundamentalists believe in polygamy/polandry. That complicates things for a state, as the state is in some sense responsible for the welfare of offspring and community property.

Is marriage purely and absolutely a framework for reproduction or is it an intentional statement of life-long commitment? How does that principle eliminate same sense marriages? Are loveless marriages less than romantic coupling?

In many states, as soon as one refers to your partner as husband/wife, you are married. Not to mention other common law marriages. 

Cotraception law is a freakin' joke. How does the state enforce it?