Clarence Thomas: "Reconsider" Gay Marriage

@mott-the-hoople said
No he doesnt want to make it illegal…stop your lying

Thomas simply commented that what it is ruled on is UNCONSTITUTIONAL…substantive due process…its simply not in the constitution

@vivify said
By saying the right for gays to get married is unconstitutional he's saying states should make it illegal if they want; that gay marriage should not be a right.

Thomas wants to overturn the right of gays to married; not just that, he thinks laws banning criminal prosecution of gay relationships should also be overturned. In other words, he wants it to be illegal.

@mott-the-hoople said
"So ANYTHING not in the constitution is up for grabs as far as that evil cabal of ultrarightwingers on SCOTUS,"

Yes you dumbass, if it is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, the 10th amendment clearly gives those rights to the STATES

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

@wildgrass said
"Concealed carry" isn't in the constitution either, but the conservatives have no problem dipping their toe in that pot, insofar as States are prohibited by SCOTUS from making laws limiting something that isn't in the Constitution.

@vivify said
By saying the right for gays to get married is unconstitutional he's saying states should make it illegal if they want; that gay marriage should not be a right.

Thomas wants to overturn the right of gays to married; not just that, he thinks laws banning criminal prosecution of gay relationships should also be overturned. In other words, he wants it to be illegal.

@no1marauder said
He dissented in both cases so really this is a "dog bites man" story.

@Mott-The-Hoople
Considering there always were and always WILL be gays, it has nothing to do with morality, it is an unbreakable part of human existence and to think otherwise puts anyone thinking that squarely back in the tenth century and OF COURSE you will just accuse me of being gay because just to show that FACT in your mind would prove that my political agenda is to keep same sex relations legal.
Which it is even though I am not gay, so don't even go there.
I don't want the US to go back two hundred years with this BS religious right takeover of SCOTUS and their sights set on taking over all three branches of government and allowing states to have their own electors and kick out the actual votes of the people so they can complete the takeover permanently of the US, ending democracy here. And of course ALL that will be just fine with you and the rest of your zombie buddies.

@sonhouse said
@Mott-The-Hoople
Considering there always were and always WILL be gays, it has nothing to do with morality, it is an unbreakable part of human existence and to think otherwise puts anyone thinking that squarely back in the tenth century and OF COURSE you will just accuse me of being gay because just to show that FACT in your mind would prove that my political agenda is to k ...[text shortened]... mocracy here. And of course ALL that will be just fine with you and the rest of your zombie buddies.

@shavixmir said
Well, it’s very clear what has to happen.
6 conservative judges have to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Or just killed… whatever…

Then Biden can appoint 6 new ones. And put the middle-ages behind America.

@suzianne said
Hey, if YOU want to treat them special, be my guest. But all they're asking for is "EQUAL treatment under the law".

@AverageJoe1 - Remember, though, that the definition of 'equal' or 'equitable' has a different definition in the lib world.

Absolutely right, AJoe

slo-mo Suzie has no clue,., she still thinks that the stink-bigots of the lunatical left are looking for EQUAL.

@vivify said
This has nothing to do with anything. A Supreme Court judge wants to deny gays the right to marry or to even have relationships, which would be a gross violation of civil rights.

@earl-of-trumps said
Vivify, that is not right and you know it. C'mon, may.

The judges have said that such things are not in the SJC's aegis which means the state or federal legislatures take over

@sonhouse said
@Mott-The-Hoople
So ANYTHING not in the constitution is up for grabs as far as that evil cabal of ultrarightwingers on SCOTUS, the decisions they are after have nothing to do with law OR the constitution, just out in the open religious right wing politics which is EXACTLY what this latest attack on women's rights are and that is only the beginning and you and the rest of th ...[text shortened]... world stage but of course you and all the rest of your zombie crowd could care less about that also.

@mott-the-hoople said
"So ANYTHING not in the constitution is up for grabs as far as that evil cabal of ultrarightwingers on SCOTUS,"

Yes you dumbass, if it is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, the 10th amendment clearly gives those rights to the STATES

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."