Yeah, I get timing can be an issue.
Also, if it's a Right, why wouldn't you make it right. Like, there has been quite a few instances of soceity clearly going one way, some states changing their laws to support this and other deliberately try to suppress it.
Perhaps it could have gradually spread across the US. History says that's highly unlikely. See also Cannabis laws at this time. I dont think it's going to be legal in 50s states in my lifetime
Who makes a "right" a "right". The 9th says very nicely that just because it isn't written there doesn't mean it isn't a right but adds no directive. We do have the ability, through the people, to Amend the Constitution. But if it isn't in there, the 10th says it's up to the States to do the right thing. The Constitution doesn't bar all bad things nor guarantee all good things. There is a school of thought that says Justices should interpret the Constitution as they will. And they tend to be elite: guaranteed upper class income for life having come from backgrounds that likely put them through schools like Harvard University. This is not a typical citizen: they will have their own biases. Or, they can try to figure out how an issue applies to the Constitution within a framework keeping in mind a law's intention. Maybe, the people will have a better chance to make their views controlling in that matter. Maybe. How we're doing with self government fills books.
The Constitution was also intended to be very slow and deliberate. I'm pro de-criminalization. But I try to imagine I were against it. People using it will have a public impact. Imagine if a court discovers it Unconstitutional for the law to control that substance (but others are subject to such controls!). I'd feel robbed of a say in something that can impact me. Maybe part of all of this is to help convince the loser of an issue that the loss was justified. I think that less likely when an elite says unconvincingly that it's just been discovered, by elites, they he doesn't get his way.
I wanna know if a law that says you have to donate blood and tissue to somebody you injure in a no-fault auto accident would be constitutional.
Did that with interracial marriage too. How much longer should they have waited? I mean, waiting until 2/3rds of the country was on board with gay marriage hasn't stopped conservatives from wanting to overturn it.
Again: The Constitution doesn't bar all bad things nor guarantee all good things. The law explicitly allows states to put people to death for criminal infractions as long as this punishment is not cruel and unusual and has complied with due process. Could it demand you give blood and tissue to another in some cases? I don't know. I don't know if it would be a Constitutional matter.
I am increasingly thinking what I wrote above. Maybe this all has to do with convincing the losing side of an issue that there is good reason to have lost and accept it and move on.
Anti Interracial marriage laws Unconstitutional due to Equal Protection? Seems an easy sell. On what rational basis would you be against it? There are very small groups out there vocally and without any rational basis against it. They're kind of a joke. I know of no serious, potent movement to reverse this decision.
A wife can tell her husband: "I know we are married. There used to be all sorts of rights and duties involved with voluntarily engaging in such a relationship. Still I am to have your child in a few days. The child is viable and healthy. But for whatever reason whatsoever I'm going to have the baby killed." That the law, as written, has always intended that this unilateral decision can be made? I think our experiences have told us this is a hard sell.