Does NY Times think Clarence Thomas opposes interracial marriage?

 Ari Kaufman:

As pro-abortion radicals throw violent tantrums across America, the New York Times Editorial Board engaged in noxious hyperbole over the weekend.

The 16 liberals, who undeniably lack any ideological diversity, wrote a preposterous staff editorial lauding abortion based on one mendacious analogy.

“Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow black people and white people to marry,” the writers ranted. “Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t. The laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived.”

No. This is insulting; there’s as much a chance of this occurring as my starting on the mound for the New York Yankees tonight.

Do the insular editors not even comprehend the most fundamental reality of last week’s illegally-leaked draft? Are they simply trying to spread vile ignorance?

I am no constitutional lawyer, but the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case — declaring that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment — ain’t going away.

Consider that more than a half-century ago, fewer than 10% of American adults approved of interracial marriage; today, a remarkable 94% approve, which is up seven points just from 2013. None of the over-educated charlatans at the Gray Lady noted this.

These, by the way, are record highs, unsurpassed by any other country, I bet.

Additionally, approval of interracial marriage is similar across U.S. regions: 97% in the West; 94% in the East; and, yes, 93% in the Midwest and South. If only the New York Times readers could be given some facts.
...

.Clarence Thomas's wife is white and the latest appointment of a black female to the court is married to a white guy.  The Times writers searched for an analogy to the abortion decision and aborted themselves.