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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[1srelluc]

More leftist red-herring BS.

 

[Meathead]

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

His wife is a woman. If he was married to a man, you'd have a point.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, but sad because that there are really people who believe it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

No Bobby Boy, there is nothing dishonest intent here. Thomas is an ideologue who has no problem voting in ways that inflict harm on people in the name of his brand of conservatism . The question is a valid one. Will he have the integrity stick to his ideology on a matter that is close to home. ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, but sad because that there are really people who believe it.

What argument? It is question.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

What argument? It is question.

A question by you, an argument by others.

 

[Polishprince]

Its not on the docket and thus irrelevant.

What is being considered is whether Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden, or if it was Adam and Steve.

The historical record indicates its the former- marriage is between 1 man and 1 broad.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Irrelevant, just like you.

It is not irrelevant for people who are in, or contemplating an interracial marriage

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No Bobby Boy, there is nothing dishonest intent here. Thomas is an ideologue who has no problem voting in ways that inflict harm on people in the name of his brand of conservatism . The question is a valid one. Will he have the integrity stick to his ideology on a matter that is close to home. ?

Are you claiming that there is anything about his ideology, that should cause him to support a law that prohibits marriage between people of different races?

 

[Lastamender]

It is not irrelevant for people who are in, or contemplating an interracial marriage

It is legal. They have nothing to worry about. This is just another distraction while the country is being destroyed and massive fraud has been proven.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Its not on the docket and thus irrelevant.

What is being considered is whether Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden, or if it was Adam and Steve.

The historical record indicates its the former- marriage is between 1 man and 1 broad.

Otherwise, Mankind would have gone extinct very quickly.

 

[Indeependent]

No Bobby Boy, there is nothing dishonest intent here. Thomas is an ideologue who has no problem voting in ways that inflict harm on people in the name of his brand of conservatism . The question is a valid one. Will he have the integrity stick to his ideology on a matter that is close to home. ?

Thomas is an ideologue

The Irony!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you claiming that there is anything about his ideology, that should cause him to support a law that prohibits marriage between people of different races?

Actually yes. If he were honest, he would acknowledge that his position that Obergefell was incorrectly decided means that Loving was also incorrectly decided. He can't have it both ways

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They are crazy eniugh to try it. They dont need his vote either.

 

[pknopp]

Would he have voted to overturn it today? No.

Would he have then? I believe he very well might have.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Its not on the docket and thus irrelevant.

What is being considered is whether Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden, or if it was Adam and Steve.

The historical record indicates its the former- marriage is between 1 man and 1 broad.

Oh please! This is about the law. Secular law. Save your preaching for church. By the way, the same religious arguments that have been used against gay marriage were also used to justify segregation and anti miscegenation laws

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually yes. If he were honest, he would acknowledge that his position that Obergefell was incorrectly decided means that Loving was also incorrectly decided. He can't have it both ways

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.

 

[White 6]

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

If Federal Supreme Court voided all inter-racial marriage, would you still have to split halfs or make the husband liable for alimony?