There aren't any active cases that I'm aware of that challenge homosexual "marriage" but what Justice Thomas is talking about is rolling back the concept of "substantive due process". This is a concept that is supposedly granted by implication in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Let's a take a look at the cruicial bit, Section I:The underlined is the entire basis for almost all legislation from the bench since the Warren Court began discussing the concept of "substantive" (that is, in the physical world) due process and its implications for American society. Substantive Due Process means that if the government makes a law that can be construed to deprive you of "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happieness," it is infringing upon your Constitutional rights. This is where it gets a bit uncomfortable. The Warren Court was active during a complicated time in United States history, during the Civil Rights movement. Thus, it used the concept of Substantive Due Process to push through a lot of decisions that we hold pretty dear in modern America-- including one calledBrown V. Topeka Board of Ed.where SCOTUS overruledPlessy V. Fergusonon the basis that it infringed upon Oliver Brown's right to Substantive Due Process.

Even though it was used for what was supposed to be a great thing, the integration of the United States, the inception of this concept has now allowed any person to claim that any law infringes upon their pursuit of happiness and is therefore unconstitutional. Now that SDP has been rolled back, it can be checked in other important decisions-- which decisions do you think those might be? Yep-- contraception, because hoes said that if they couldn't get their back blown out every weekend with no fear of pregnancy you are infringing on their pursuit of happiness, therefore any restriction on the SDP access to contraception is unconstitutional. Now you have judges deciding what constitutes an "undue burden," these people are lawyers how the FOOK are they supposed to know what constitutes an undue burden to a whore? Same thing with **** "marriage" if you don't let them phuck each other in the angus right on your church's alter-- pursuit of happiness baby! Stop infringing!

The idea of "due process of law" by the way, means a trial by your peers or judge. So another downstream effect of SDP is that SCOTUS or the Circuit Courts at whatever level, have to make a ruling on absolutely everything now. In modern America, 100% of laws are reviewed by judges at some level of publication. It didn't used to be like that. States did their own thing and the feds would only intervene on really serious chit like mass unrest or whatever.

It's a massive potential step forward for constitutional originalism in the United States that to be frank, I 100% never thought we would ever see.