I'd like to hope that it won't go that way, these things won't be overturned, but again, precedent doesn't matter anymore, and a lot of these were resolved under the 14th, were they not?
Yep. The argument is over the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in pertinent part
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .
One side of the debate is of the opinion that this means only that a state can deprive people of life/lib/property only by "due process," either a judicial proceeding or a law duly debated and passed. This is called "procedural due process."
The other side, called the "substantive due process" side argues that the "liberty" the state cannot deprive people of includes the liberty to marry whom they please, the liberty to use contraceptives, the liberty to have sex with whom they please, etc. The "procedural due process" side says that no such thing exists, states may do as they please as long as they follow the usual and Constitutional legislative or judicial requirements.
The argument in
Loving v. Virginia was that it wasn't discriminatory: people of all races were equally forbidden to marry outside their races. Equal, right? (Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, it was never used except against White/Black marriages.) Same thing with the contraception cases. They argued that the various laws against contraception were equal and non-discriminatory, and therefore within the state's discretion, so long as the proper procedures were followed.
Personally, I think it's all by the way. The Ninth Amendment states, in full, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It's the old "seas" argument. One side views the law, all of it, from the Constitution down to local traffic ordinances, as a "sea" of individual rights within which certain "islands" of government power are identified and limited, by due process. The other side views the law a "sea" of government power with which are "islands" of individual rights, only those expressed in the Constitution and limited thereby. This view was best expressed by rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who said "I find no right to privacy in the Constitution," and concluded that no right not laid out in the Constitution exists.
And who decides what rights the people have? Well, under Anglo-American-Canadian common law, going back to 1250 AD ("historical and traditional," right?) that power lies in the hands of judges. The right to be secure in your home was first enunciated by an English judge, not passed by Parliament or declared by the Crown. Considering that the U.S. and Canada basically took the judicial systems of England lock, stock, and barrel, it is only logical to conclude that whatever right a judge says you have, you have. The only way to change that is for a higher-level judge(s) to say otherwise, or for Congress or Parliament to pass a law limiting or eliminating the right.
So the Right is playing with fire here. If they're so hell-bent on eliminating rights properly found by the highest judges in the land, what prevents those same judges from eliminating the rights they love so much (mostly the rights to be an asshole and carry a gun)?
It's important to understand that all of this is merely a brake on government power, not a ban. "Both sides" have rights they hate and want to eliminate. All of this legislative and judicial folderol simply makes the governments slow down a little, and gives time for thought and debate before acting. By its very terms, the Constitution can be amended, including repealing parts of it (as we did with Prohibition), and the laws can be changed.
At the moment, the Right has the whip hand, because our government/legislative structure permits minority rule under the correct circumstances. For most of the 1955-2016 period, the Left held the whip hand.
