Clarence Thomas: How Would He Vote on Loving V. Virginia Now?

[bodecea]

Associate Justice Thomas has made it clear that would vote to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that invalidated state bans on same sex marriage

In 1967, another landmark case involving marriage was decided, That was Loving V. Virginia which invalidated bans on interracial marriage

Both cases were decided on the same constitutional principles of equal protection under the law and the right to due process.

Thomas' wife is white. So the question that comes to mind is: I the Loving ruling were to be challenged today, how would Thomas vote

Good question. Using Justice Alito's ruling, Loving v Virginia is unConstitutional too.

 

[Orangecat]

TheRegressivePutz is just trolling. He's been following me around for a week, whining like a bitch, because I said I believe the government has no say in the institution of marriage.

 

[bodecea]

TheRegressivePutz is just trolling. He's been following me around for a week, whining like a bitch, because I said I believe the government has no say in the institution of marriage.

So, you never had a civil marriage or ever supported someone else who had a civil marriage, right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

By definition, marriage is, has always been, and will always be between a man and a woman.

The Obergefell ruling was bullshit, because it is based on a bullshit premise. There is, and can be, no such thing as a “marriage” between two men or between two women. Such a thing is a depraved and insane mockery of any form of genuine marriage.

Any considerations of which man is allowed under what circumstances to marry which woman is a completely different matter. Where it is allowed, the result is still a genuine marriage, between a man and a woman; and not a sick mockery such as Obergefell tried to legitimize.

A different matter? Then how come you sound so much like Bull Connor? Hate is hate.

• • Theophilus Eugene \"Bull\" Connor (1897-1973) was a successful Alabama politician who held a variety of public offices for over four decades, among them Birmingham, Alabama's Commissioner of Public Safety. Connor, a staunch white supremacist, was at the center of white efforts to impede the work of the civil rights movement in Birmingham.
  
  

  Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor (1897-1973) (U.S. National Park Service)

  A brief description of Birmingham Alabama's staunch white supremacist leader Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor (1897-1973).

  www.nps.gov
  
  S
  
  

  ​

 

[Orangecat]

So, you never had a civil marriage or ever supported someone else who had a civil marriage, right?

Irrelevant. Stop babbling nonsense, moron.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

TheRegressivePutz is just trolling. He's been following me around for a week, whining like a bitch, because I said I believe the government has no say in the institution of marriage.

It appears that you are the one who is stalking and trolling me since you now show up on my new thread. I do not give a shit about your inane position that the government should not be involved in marriage. That is irrelevant to the question that I posed to you. I have been pressing you on the issue of whether or not you believe that the Loving case was decided properly -given the FACT that like it or not -government is involved in marriage. But you have been too much of a wimp and COWARD to answer it

 

[Orangecat]

It appears that you are the one who is stalking and trolling me since you now show up on my new thread. I do not give a shit about your inane position that the government should not be involved in marriage. That is irrelevant to the question that I posed to you. I have been pressing you on the issue of whether or not you believe that the Loving case was decided properly -given the FACT that like it or not -government is involved in marriage. But you have been too much of a wimp and COWARD to answer it

Still flailing, I see. Did I quote you on that last post? No. That's not stalking, dumbass, that's informing others what a leaky vagina you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clarence Thomas: How Would He Vote on Loving V. Virginia Now?

To overturn, of course – ‘justified’ with the “states’ rights” lie.

If he could, Thomas would destroy 14th Amendment jurisprudence in its entirety.

See Thomas’ concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Watching to see what form of TheOppressiveFaggot-style madness this thread descends into.

Rather obviously, Clarence Thomas, a black man married to a white woman, is unlikely to support a law that prohibits black men marrying white women. I don't see any honest point to be made by even raising the question, but given what the OP is, I have no doubt that there is some seriously insane and dishonest point that it intends to try to make.

I predict that this thread will be dumped downstairs before it fills the first page of fifty posts, if not shut down for violating the Clean Start policy.

The racist right would have no problem with states banning interracial marriage – consistent with white grievance politics and racist replacement theory.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still flailing, I see. Did I quote you on that last post? No. That's not stalking, dumbass, that's informing others what a leaky vagina you are.

The racist right would likewise have no problem with overturning Brown v. Board of Education – allowing the states to codify segregation, a return to whites only restrooms and blacks relegated to the back of the bus.

And if black Americans don’t like living in a state that enforces segregation, they can just move to another state, correct?

 

[Orangecat]

The racist right would likewise have no problem with overturning Brown v. Board of Education – allowing the states to codify segregation, a return to whites only restrooms and blacks relegated to the back of the bus.

Neither would the racist left. Luckily, there aren't enough racists on either side to make your statement relevant.

And if black Americans don’t like living in a state that enforces segregation, they can just move to another state, correct?

A lot of liberal blacks are warming up to segregation. Remember when that beatlejuice looking Chicago mayor would only do interviews with non-white journalists?

 

[Couchpotato]

Associate Justice Thomas has made it clear that would vote to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that invalidated state bans on same sex marriage

In 1967, another landmark case involving marriage was decided, That was Loving V. Virginia which invalidated bans on interracial marriage

Both cases were decided on the same constitutional principles of equal protection under the law and the right to due process.

Thomas' wife is white. So the question that comes to mind is: I the Loving ruling were to be challenged today, how would Thomas vote

Marriage (as far as the state is concerned anyway) is basically just a contract and a bunch of legal agreements between 2 people that is all rolled up into one neat and tidy thing so that it's easy for people to bind themselves together in "marriage". I think that's a pretty fair assessment of what marriage is from the State's perspective. If I enter into a contract or legal agreement in Florida, Georgia has to honor that agreement or contract. That's the equal protection under the law bit if Im not mistaken. Since marriage is just a contract/legal agreement you cant have one State not honoring a contract/legal agreement signed in another state. That is why interracial marriage or same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and why one state cant decide to just not allow them. Georgia doesn't have the authority to invalidate a legal agreement or contract entered into by 2 parties in Florida.

 

[d0gbreath]

Much of Clarence's vote would come down to how he feels about Ginni. I voted that NO he wouldn't vote to overturn Loving, but if he wanted to send her packing, it would be an easy latent annulment.