Posted on 06/24/2022 2:08:55 PM PDT by Morgana
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas revealed he has laws protecting gay marriage and contraception in his sights, after axing Roe v. Wade.
Following Friday's landmark decision, Thomas called on his fellow jurists to overturn previous rulings that followed similar legal precedent.
The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion of the decision penned by Thomas, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex sexual activity, and citizens' access to birth control.
It comes as the Supreme Court controversially elected to strike down Roe v. Wade, a nearly 50 year-old decision that granted women the constitutional right to abortion.
In his separate opinion also released Friday, Thomas - the court's longest-serving justice - welcomed the guidance, but noted how it falls short of addressing citizens rights' apart from abortion.
The 74-year-old justice, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, went on to declare the court should reconsider other cases that fall under previous due process precedents.
Thomas' argument was entrenched in the belief that since the Constitution’s Due Process Clause was found not to secure a right to an abortion in Friday's ruling, the court should apply that same logic to other landmark cases.
He cited three in particular - including 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed for married couples to buy and use contraception, and 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed same-sex couples to legally marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The congressional vote on guns wasn’t “controversial?” I hate these people.
The entire article is a lie.
They are taking a quote from his opinion on today’s ruling and turning it on its head. Thomas’ statement in the ruling said the “due process clause” only applies to Roe V. Wade and not those other cases. The complete opposite of this Daily Mail propaganda.
If my memory is correct, even California rejected Homosexual Marriage when they voted.
No he didn't that's just another lie.
The government has no business in the bedroom of consenting adults.
substantive due process
Folks, please read this post and read Thomas’ decision, starting p 117: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Thomas is saving the Republic and its Constitution.
The Constitution is a brake on the government, not a list of citizens permissible acts. See amendments 9&10
Yes, please, in the Name of Jesus.
Then what’s their next move? They surely won’t sit idly by waiting for two conservative justices to die. I would assume they are hell bent on not getting Garlanded again. That could happen in six months.
This decision was 1-8 against overturning those decisions.
Read between the lines.
It's the stuff people do in their bedrooms forced down the throats of kindergarteners and schoolchildren that is the problem.
Oh, and what people do in their bedrooms enshrined in a month-long holiday during which the armed services are commanded to sing along, and waste taxpayer dollars on pronouns instead of warfare instruction, and corporations force employees to clap along with indoctrination that violates their personal morality.
Did I mention the erasure of women, if a bigger, stronger woman who used to be a man wants to invade their private spaces or compete against them in sports? Because privacy was the basis for the Griswold decision that led to Roe that led to cohabitation that led to gay rights that led to "trans-affirming care" for children. But who's keeping score?
I see Thomas as desirous only for the return of Government by the People as opposed to government by Judicial Fiat. The intrusions into legislative arenas by the dictatorship of a Federal Court are the main reason we have such an unsettled feeling about our laws and government. Legislative legitimacy derives from the sausage making process of care legislative reform and compromise with each faction getting a chance at making such laws and reforms more palatable to the people they represent.
I would think that since the Federal Gov’t reduces the amount of Taxes one has to pay based on marriage status ... gay marriage would be a lot tougher to try to send back to the states.
I could see the gays claiming discrimination under tax law if the court were to try to overturn their earlier ruling.
With leaps like that you should try out for the Olympics. To try to bring some reason back to what I was discussing, the court has no business regulating contraception nor consensual acts between consenting adults.
Since you aren’t able to speak for yourself, do you have a point to make? Do you think the government belongs in peoples bedrooms? Please cite constitutional section that supports that conclusion.
And try to avoid silly graphics. If you can’t mount the necessary logic to make your own point just admit as much.
The government is entering people’s bedrooms when it insists on providing services to pervert couples and the adoption of innocent children by same sex couples. The government overrides the first amendment when it enacts “hate speech” laws to batter Christians who hold to their beliefs. The government becomes the child molester when it decrees that small children do not need a mother and two men can adopt a toddler.
Our government since Colonial times has regulated sexual behavior and marriage. The State's interest in sexual relations had been long established and recognized in Supreme Court jurisprudence until Roe, Griswold, Eisenstadt v. Baird and numerous lower court decisions stemming from those critical 1970s-era "feminist" decisions have incrementally destroyed protections for the natural family, for pregnant women and for children, resulting in widespread civil disorder such as we are now seeing.
Just as most American citizens of previous generations could trust their USDA to keep our food supply safe, the FDA to insist on rigorous testing and development of drugs and medical supplies, and the DOJ to promulgate guidelines for justice against criminal harms and civil torts, previous generations could also abide the State's interest in protecting spouses and children from corrupted exploitation or injury by individuals. Now, after generations of encultured narcissism and entitlement and incursion by marxists, every institution has become corrupted, resulting in civil and social decadence and cruel outcomes for individuals.
Once SCOTUS redefined marriage, not just in the recent gay marriage decision Obergefell, but much earlier, through enabling cohabitation, abortion and consequence-free infidelity via a cascade of hedonistic decisions in the 70s, the result has been an explosion of self-interested, socially destabilizing abuse of sex and of the welfare of children.
That said, the solution is not more government, but a return to morality, ethics, virtues and continence surrounding sex, which literally holds the power of life and death. This regeneration cannot be legislated. Only some of the harms of decadence can be mitigated by laws.
To your point about government in the bedrooms: while the Federal government should have nothing to do with regulating mating behavior, the state governments have every right and obligation to adjudicate or act to prevent serious conflict among its citizens from sexual exploitation, marital fraud, child abuse and domestic abuse, false claims regarding paternity, custody and inheritance. Sex is powerful.
Just as most of us conservatives believe in the inalienable right to bear arms, we also believe in responsible gun ownership, training, practice and knowledge of the regulated restraints, such as not shooting a fleeing burglar in the back. Likewise, the use of sexual firepower requires training, practice, responsible use and judicious application of restraints.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.