The U.S. Supreme Court decided that just under 50 years was enough time to give women the choice of what to do with their bodies, overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that permitted women to get abortions anywhere in the United States. The court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case did not outlaw abortions outright but made it subject to state laws, which means that, at least in Wisconsin’s case, it’s not happening due to a 19^th century law banning them in most cases.

Predictably, people are outraged at the decision, seething at the claim that the Supreme Court in a previous incarnation “erroneously” decided to treat abortion as a fundamental right. While I’m not a fan of terminating pregnancy, save for cases of rape or to save the life of the mother, nobody needs my consent to do anything, just as I don’t require anyone else’s permission to live my life.

While most of the focus has been on the decision regarding abortion rights, there is an opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas nestled in there where he believes the Supreme Court should revisit other cases, among them Obergfell v. Hodges. That’s the case that allowed same-sex couples to be legally wed, and since 2015, millions of couples have tied the knot and reveled in the ability to share in a fundamental human privilege.

Thankfully, that can only happen if there is a case in the future that makes its way to the Supreme Court—the court cannot just arbitrarily make a decision to reverse prior court rulings. However, as the Dobbs case showed, no Supreme Court decision is forever etched in stone, and while the people sounding the alarm prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned were seen as suffering from Chicken Little Syndrome, we now have precedent showing that being paranoid doesn’t mean folks aren’t out to get us.

Thomas was in the minority when Obergfell came down, so this comes across as a case of being a sore loser. The reason we have nine people on the Supreme Court is so we don’t have one person arbitrarily deciding the legal and moral compass for an entire country.

Jim Obergfell, the chief plaintiff in the landmark 2015 case, said as much in a statement after the Dobbs decision was announced, saying “The millions of loving couples who have the right to marriage equality to form their own families do not need Clarence Thomas imposing his individual twisted morality upon them. If you want to see an error in judgment, Clarence Thomas, look in the mirror.”

Thomas also comes across as a bit of a hypocrite in his words. Take a look at his marriage. He is a Black man married to a White woman, and it was only a few years prior to the Roe v. Wade decision that the Supreme Court ruled in the Loving v. Virginia case that struck down 16 state bans on interracial marriage.

Thomas argues the Due Process Clause in the U.S. Constitution does not apply to abortion rights, and so it shouldn’t apply to “substantive due process” decisions, including Obergfell. If that’s the case, someone should bring forth a case that puts Loving in jeopardy, and see how Thomas likes it. It’s only fair. If he’s coming for our marriages, we should have the option to go after his.

Doesn’t seem so black and white anymore, does it, Clarence?

If you look at life prior to the Obergfell decision, only a few states permitted same-sex couples to marry. Many of those couples would have commitment ceremonies, which means they’re married in their hearts, but not in the eyes of the law. If one person died, the other partner could lose custody of children because they were not legally wed. If a person was in the hospital, the partner could not make medical decisions or even visit because they weren’t considered to be family, by law.

That’s why it’s so important to me and my sweetheart, Todd, that we have the right to get married. We’ve decided to spend our lives together, and just like any husband and wife, we deserve the same rights that they have. Obergfell provided that right. It should not be meddled with.

However, just as Roe v. Wade was recently decimated, it’s clear that Obergfell or any other Supreme Court case is not sacred, and that, like any freedom we have in this amazing United States, we must constantly keep fighting to keep those rights, lest someone like Clarence Thomas tries to take them away.