It's time for the US to start changing laws if they want the law to, you know, change, instead of relying on courts to re-interpret old laws to comply with the zeitgeist. Does no-one find it bizarre how after almost a century, laws which were previously considered constitutional are found to violate the constitution?

The writers of the 14th Amendment, which was the basis of prohibiting interracial marriage bans, were alive when those marriage bans were in effect. One would think they would have spoken out about how they have just been made unconstitutional.

You do not have a democracy if there is no limit to the creativity with which laws are interpreted. Of course empirically, you don't have a democracy anyway [1], but for the sake of argument...

[1] Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Literally yes, by the Court's own admission:

> For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

Wow.

In case other readers are also not as familiar with those rulings:

Griswold: protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives

Lawrence: protects the right to consensual, adult homosexual intercourse

Obergefell: legalizes gay marriage

Justice Thomas said in his concurrent opinion on this case that they should next consider the cases that protected contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and same-sex relationships.

So yes. That is unfortunately next.

There is no constitutional argument to be made for banning either of those things.

Meanwhile abortion involves another life, yet the constitutional ground it stood on what was "the right to privacy". Even RBG acknowledged for years that Roe was on shaky ground at best and Legislatures should work under the assumption it would be overturned.

likely both. contraceptives next. capitalism and imperialism require a lower caste of workers to turn the gears of the machine--domestic supply of babies needs to be higher for those machines to feast upon.

they want immigrants not natural citizens, you can pay an immigrant less for five generations

On that topic, I wonder how much immigration from Latin American countries impacted this?

People who identify as Hispanic are nearing 20% of the US population - and the vast majority of those come from predominately Catholic countries and many see religion as a much more central part of their life and worldview than other Americans.