Posted on 06/27/2022 5:27:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I hope this is true. I would love to be able to say “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman” again.
RE: I hope this is true. I would love to be able to say “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman” again.
What about contraception?
Here in Californicator land, the gays are in mortal fear of this decree from the Supremes.
With Roe overturned, rollback of gay marriage and other rights feared!
By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Jun 24, 2022
People protest about abortion, Friday, June 24, 2022, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years — a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court’s landmark abortion cases.
People protest about abortion, Friday, June 24, 2022, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years — a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court’s landmark abortion cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing states to ban abortion stirred alarm Friday among LGBTQ advocates, who feared that the ruling could someday allow a rollback of legal protections for gay relationships, including the right for same-sex couples to marry.
In the court’s majority opinion overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Samuel Alito said the decision applied only to abortion. But critics of the court’s conservative majority gave the statement no credence.
“I don’t buy that at all,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University and faculty director of its Institute for National and Global Health Law. “It really is much more extreme than the justices are making it out to be.”
He added: “It means that you can’t look to the Supreme Court as an impartial arbiter of constitutional rights because they’re acting more as culture warriors.”
Excerpted:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbFOxftW7i5-u-E3gdFblQj-ixDovLGuXaj5WqG8O-U/edit
RE: Here in Californicator land, the gays are in mortal fear of this decree from the Supremes.
Why would they? They live CALIFORNIA.
I’m in the dark. What was the ruling about contraception about?
How does he separate interracial marriage from his argument. What, in his argument, would be the difference. If he seems no difference why not mention it? Curious to know
I can't imagine that anybody would file a case challenging contraception or mixed-race marriage or same-sex marriage today. If they do, I can't imagine that case would survive all the way to the Supreme Court. It's only when that should happen that any of the fear that's being spread by the radicals would have any chance of happening.
There is so much out there to prevent these kinds of cases from making their way to SCOTUS in the first place.
-PJ
RE: I’m in the dark. What was the ruling about contraception about?
Read about the 1965 case of GRISWOLD vs. THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT here:
I would think that they would rule that marriage is a states’ rights issue also and the federal government has no dog in the fight.
That explains why I’m in the dark. It happened 14 years before I was born.
There are a lot of decisions hoisted upon us by the SC that needs to be reversed.
Same sex marriage should be a cakewalk.
It was never passed by congress, it was decided in a liberal court in one sate.
So how can it be federal law? Marriage licenses are given by States, send it back to them.
Overturn ALL laws deemed into place by judicial fiat.
Marriage is not a federal issue. Like abortion, it’s not in the 18 enumerated powers of Congress.
RE: Marriage licenses are given by States, send it back to them.
So, what happens to a gay couple who were married in California and decided to move to a Red State that does not recognize gay marriage?
Even from Epic Times we get the false headline that Thomas is against gay marriage, contraception and for miscegenation laws. He may be, but that’s not his point.
He’s against a flawed, extra-constitutional theory called “substantive due process”, and wants rulings based on it, such as “Roe,” “Griswald,” etc., to be reevaluated. He’s also against “Brown v. Board of Education,” not for its outcome but for its legal reasoning.
Thomas has been a reliable opponent of the illegitimate doctrine of “substantive due process,” a concept allowing judges to create rights out of thin air and impose them on the people without any recognition of the primacy of the legislative process. Over many years it has cut both ways but mostly in recent decades used by leftist activists on the court.
I don’t believe the judges agreed on Dodd because of abortion. It was a states-right thing.
Revisiting these cases may also have implications in states rights.
It may have nothing to do with contraceptives.
While they are at it they should take another look at the principle of the separation of church and state. There is not a word in the Constitution supporting it.
How about reconsidering the old “can’t vote, can’t donate” rule. Corporations cannot vote but they sure do buy politicians
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.