Clarence Thomas: "Reconsider" Gay Marriage

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 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.

@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.

@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.

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?

@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

@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

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Special consideration not necessary. Just equal treatment under the law.

@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".

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.

@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."

@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.

@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".