This all boils down to something called "substantive due process", which goes back to a 1905 case where a New York law restricting a baker's working hours was ruled unconstitutional because there was no public interest in what evolved into an implied right to privacy.
Procedural due process asks the question "did the government follow proper procedure?" whereas substantive due process asks "does the government have an interest in this issue?"
So this was a key pillar in Roe v. Wade as the Court (theN) ruled that the government has no interest in what a woman does with her own body for the first trimester. As such, laws against abortion were unconstitutional. Critics at the time said there were other ways to construct a legal framework to protection abortion access.
Anyway, this implied right to privacy had all sorts of implications that the conservative judges don't like. Loving was based on both substantive due process and equal protection so it gets a little complicated.
Furhter complicating this is the Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which codified things like interracial and gay marraige.
But all sorts of rights we take for granted are built on substantive due process so as soon as the court dismantles that doctrine, the genie is out of the bottle. It's not that Thomas would necessarily vote to overturn Loving (particularly because of other complications mentioned above) but once you set the precedent, certain things become inevitable.
Contraception is probably the next thing to be under attack, particularly because there is an effort to define contraception as an abortion, both from a political and legal POV. Mifepristone will almost certainly be outlawed. Don't be surprised if the oral contraceptive pill also ends up illegal in red states too.