You didn’t answer the question. Based on your response, it looks as though you would have preferred the legality of interracial marriage be left to a vote. Is that correct?
We are a republic with a written contract between the citizens and government called the US Constitution. The majority can vote to do as it pleases so long as it doesn’t violate the contract. So, yes, I believe in the rule of law that states a handful of judges must not overturn centuries of previous rulings for social causes, no matter how worthy those causes may be.
It was wrong to prevent interracial couples from marrying. In fact, the court may have even produced a moral outcome when it overturned laws against interracial marriage. However, a few successes do not justify the subversion of our system of government.
What you have now are an entire class of judges who think they need to be the arbiters of social justice. They think they not only have the right to fix wrongs, they think it’s their obligation to correct what they think are errors in the law. In other words, they are super legislators.
On the other hand, you have justices like Scalia, who follow the law as it stands—EVEN when they disagree with it. That may not be appealing to you, but Scalia is doing far, far more to protect individual liberty than those justices who do as they please.
So, yes, the people should be the ones to change the law. That includes laws against interracial marriage. Because if you allow judges to make it up as they see fit, there is absolutely nothing they cannot do! It makes a mockery of all law, and if you aren’t naturally repulsed by this, there is nothing whatsoever traditionalist about you.