Go back
Clarence Thomas:

Clarence Thomas: "Reconsider" Gay Marriage

Debates

vivify
rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
Clock
24 Jun 22

https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6

Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade

In a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's Friday ruling to overturn the precedent set in Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote.

vivify
rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
Clock
24 Jun 22
5 edits
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
24 Jun 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6

Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade

In a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's Friday ruling to overturn the precedent set in ...[text shortened]... antive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote.
Not much of a surprise; he dissented in the last two and it's hard to see how Griswold could survive the analysis adopted in Dobbs today.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147487
Clock
24 Jun 22

vivify
rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
Clock
24 Jun 22

@no1marauder said
Not much of a surprise; he dissented in the last two and it's hard to see how Griswold could survive the analysis adopted in Dobbs today.
It's not surprising but still shocking.

Thomas including such a suggestion in a formal SCOTUS opinion is a deliberate invitation for contraception and gay marriage cases to be brought to the conservative-controlled Court.

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
24 Jun 22
1 edit

@vivify said
It's not surprising but still shocking.

Thomas including such a suggestion in a formal SCOTUS opinion is a deliberate invitation for contraception and gay marriage cases to be brought to the conservative-controlled Court.
(Shrug) Right wing lawyers could read those pretty clear tea leaves without Thomas playing Captain Obvious.

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89790
Clock
24 Jun 22

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Right-wing fukk for brains.

You are giving them special treatment because of their sexual preferences.

You really are a retarded cross-breed between a moron and a donkey. Aren’t you?

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147487
Clock
24 Jun 22

@shavixmir said
Right-wing fukk for brains.

You are giving them special treatment because of their sexual preferences.

You really are a retarded cross-breed between a moron and a donkey. Aren’t you?
back to hand work for you...lol

Earl of Trumps
Pawn Whisperer

My Kingdom fora Pawn

Joined
09 Jan 19
Moves
20437
Clock
24 Jun 22
1 edit

@vivify
Griswold v. Connecticut is the ruling protecting a couple's right to contraception

Why the FOOK does anyone need State's permission to use contraception??? Jeeeezus.

As far as gay marriage goes, the state should not have a say in that civil ceremony, too. My opinion

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
24 Jun 22

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Special consideration not necessary. Just equal treatment under the law.

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
24 Jun 22
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
@vivify
Griswold v. Connecticut is the ruling protecting a couple's right to contraception

Why the FOOK does anyone need State's permission to use contraception??? Jeeeezus.

As far as gay marriage goes, the state should not have a say in that civil ceremony, too. My opinion
Congratulations.

You are this close to realizing that people have Natural Rights.

It might be awhile though, before you understand "equal treatment under the law".

AverageJoe1
Catch the Train 47!

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
54607
Clock
24 Jun 22

If we, as taxpayers, are already possibly paying for contraceptive devices, in fact paying for recreational sex of others, hopefully Thomas will bring a stop to that as well.

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
24 Jun 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
It's not surprising but still shocking.

Thomas including such a suggestion in a formal SCOTUS opinion is a deliberate invitation for contraception and gay marriage cases to be brought to the conservative-controlled Court.
As I said in another thread, "Control crack-downs never stop with the first group."

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
24 Jun 22

@averagejoe1 said
If we, as taxpayers, are already possibly paying for contraceptive devices, in fact paying for recreational sex of others, hopefully Thomas will bring a stop to that as well.
While he's at it, maybe he'll stop Corporate Welfare that we all pay for, too.


Hahahahahaha... yeah, right.

Suzianne
Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37388
Clock
24 Jun 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
If we, as taxpayers, are already possibly paying for contraceptive devices, in fact paying for recreational sex of others, hopefully Thomas will bring a stop to that as well.
It's cheaper than the state raising unwanted children, which is a direct result of abolishing Roe v. Wade. I figured you would be all for universal contraception, you know, since you are SO concerned about "the babies".

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.