Clarence Thomas Signals Willingness to Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges

[BS Filter]

Do you have any understanding at all of what equal protection under the law actually means?

Sure. When a state law says marriage in that state is male and female, that's equal protection. When you say marriage is male and male, then females aren't protected and vice versa.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Look it up. Married in one state, married in all.

You need to look it up. The Full Faith and Credit clause did not work for gay marriage

the connecticut lgbt law project » The Full Faith and Credit Clause and Same Sex Marriage: Why Aren’t States Required to Recognize Out of State Marriages?

www.ctlgbtlaw.com

 

[Polishprince]

Clarence Thomas Signals Willingness to Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges | Education News

Justice Clarence Thomas is also raising the possibility of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges and returning the legalization of gay marriage to the states.

www.educationviews.org

Commentary:
Thomas and Alito are out of control! Unlike abortion which has always been a highly emotional issue, the issue of same sex marriage has largely been forgotten. Gay folks are getting married and most people do not even notice. They are productive and responsible members of the community. They maintain homes and are parents to children. They have jobs and pay taxes. The reality of same sex marriage harms no one.

One the brighter side, Thomas has a problem. Who is going to bring a case to SCOTUS who has standing before the court-that is, someone who can legitimately claim that they were personally harmed by same sex marriage?

Sure, you have those bakers, photographers, and wedding planners who have been sued for refusing services to gay couples. However, they were harmed by the fact that there are laws against discrimination and denial of access to public accommodations. In addition, these same people would undoubtedly refused services and accommodations to same sex couples who wanted to celebrate a civil union, or just their commitment to each other. So the issue is not marriage itself.

So what's the big deal?

Everyone always knew that the decision was full of shit- that the Founding Fathers never even heard of the concept of "Gay Marriage"much less wanted to mandate it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's the beauty of the republic

And sometimes it's the ugliness of the republic. Which is why we petition the Supreme Court to encode constitutionally protected, unenumerated rights. Like, abortion. And interracial marriage. And minority voting.. And use of contraceptives.

 

[Coyote]

Educate yourself:
President Barack Obama maintained in a new interview that he “evolved” on gay marriage

Hillary Clinton Says She 'Evolved' On Gay Marriage

Were you born last week?

Educate yourself. A Supreme Court nominee reassures Congress something is settled law, and then reverses once confirmed? Everyone who opposed that nominee knew they wanted to overturn Roe. That isn’t evolution. It’s lying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Educate yourself. A Supreme Court nominee reassures Congress something is settled law, and then reverses once confirmed? Everyone who opposed that nominee knew they wanted to overturn Roe. That isn’t evolution. It’s lying.

He lied. And the rubes LOVE that he lied. The jihad rule.

Yet here they are, defending against the observation that he lied. The cult has become so bizarre.

 

[Polishprince]

Educate yourself. A Supreme Court nominee reassures Congress something is settled law, and then reverses once confirmed? Everyone who opposed that nominee knew they wanted to overturn Roe. That isn’t evolution. It’s lying.

And everyone who supported the nominee knew the same thing.

This is supposed to be a democracy, and if someone disagrees with Abortion, why shouldn't they be fighting against it?

Or are some things so important to snowflakes that they can never be questioned?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what's the big deal?

Everyone always knew that the decision was full of shit- that the Founding Fathers never even heard of the concept of "Gay Marriage"much less wanted to mandate it.

Everyone knows that you are full of shit. While the founding fathers could not have conceived of same sex marriage, they were wise enough to know that issues that they could not for see would arise in the future. That is why they drafted the constitution as a living document that has the capacity to adopt to changing times, a capacity that you clearly lack.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is supposed to be a democracy, and if someone disagrees with Abortion, why shouldn't they be fighting against it?

Because the banning of abortion is not pro life. It is misogynistic and paternalistic. It threatens lives of women and does not end abortion. It only ends safe and legal abortion.

 

[BS Filter]

Educate yourself. A Supreme Court nominee reassures Congress something is settled law, and then reverses once confirmed? Everyone who opposed that nominee knew they wanted to overturn Roe. That isn’t evolution. It’s lying.

No such thing as settled law.

 

[BS Filter]

Everyone knows that you are full of shit. While the founding fathers could not have conceived of same sex marriage, they were wise enough to know that issues that they could not for see would arise in the future. That is why they drafted the constitution as a living document that has the capacity to adopt to changing times, a capacity that you clearly lack.

No such thing as a "living document". There is a process for changing the Constitution. Tell us what the process is.

 

[BS Filter]

Because the banning of abortion is not pro life. It is misogynistic and paternalistic. It threatens lives of women and does not end abortion. It only ends safe and legal abortion.

I can't find the words "abortion, misogynistic and paternalistic" in the Constitution. Are you hearing voices?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Educate yourself. A Supreme Court nominee reassures Congress something is settled law, and then reverses once confirmed? Everyone who opposed that nominee knew they wanted to overturn Roe. That isn’t evolution. It’s lying.

I have to wonder why this thread was moved to "Conspiracy Theories" That just not make any sense. Who makes these decisions?

 

[BS Filter]

I have to wonder why this thread was moved to "Conspiracy Theories" That just not make any sense. Who makes these decisions?

Some idiot identifying today as a moderator.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal activist judges are the problem. That has been fixed on the Supreme Court. Rulings previously made by the Supreme Court on marriage need to be reversed.

Now we have Conservative activist judges doing what they were assigned to do

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the beauty of the republic. I think liberal dumbfucks control several states. Move to one where they agree with your politics, don't mandate a one-size-fits-all nationwide tyranny. After all, democracy, right?

You have no understanding of, or respect for, what a constitutional republic actually is or how it works. People should not have to move to another state in order to secure rights under the US Constitution

I am still waiting for you to grow a spine and admit that you believe that bans on interracial marriage should not have been struck down by SCOTUS

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's the beauty of the republic. I think liberal dumbfucks control several states. Move to one where they agree with your politics, don't mandate a one-size-fits-all nationwide tyranny. After all, democracy, right?

Wrong.

One of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional rights, what makes our rights inalienable, is that those rights are immune from attack by government or capricious popular vote.

One’s rights are not contingent upon his state of residence, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That’s why the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, because citizens’ rights are subject solely to the rule of law, not man, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy or deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are examples of unjust rule.

 

[Polishprince]

Wrong.

One of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional rights, what makes our rights inalienable, is that those rights are immune from attack by government or capricious popular vote.

One’s rights are not contingent upon his state of residence, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That’s why the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, because citizens’ rights are subject solely to the rule of law, not man, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy or deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are examples of unjust rule.

Homosexuals have always had the right to get married, just like any other American.

But no one had the right to "gay marry". If a homo wanted to get hitched, he could get married to a broad just like anyone else.

 

[BS Filter]

Now we have Conservative activist judges doing what they were assigned to do

Yes. Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It's a state issue. You just can't accept that, can you.

 

[BS Filter]

Wrong.

One of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional rights, what makes our rights inalienable, is that those rights are immune from attack by government or capricious popular vote.

One’s rights are not contingent upon his state of residence, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That’s why the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, because citizens’ rights are subject solely to the rule of law, not man, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy or deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law are examples of unjust rule.

You're confused. Abortion has nothing to do with privacy and marriage is a state issue. Always.