Justice Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage

Morrison71

HR Legend
Nov 10, 2006
15,444
12,119
113
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision overturning abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade on Friday. The conservative justice, who was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, took aim at the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.


In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."

 

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
12,125
5,371
113
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision overturning abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade on Friday. The conservative justice, who was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, took aim at the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.


In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."

Shouldn't be any national law regarding marriage, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

Colonoscopy

HR All-American
Silver Member
Feb 20, 2022
2,769
3,496
113
50
Million dollar question... is this just an abortion thing? Does the GOP, as a whole, really find gay marriage problematic enough that they'll have the necessary support to go after it?
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,910
4,023
113
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision overturning abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade on Friday. The conservative justice, who was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, took aim at the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.


In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."

its one person, democrats have 3 justices that would vote to ban guns, relax
 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,755
10,218
113
At least Kavanaugh and Alito (majority opinion) disagree explicitly on this.

 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,755
10,218
113
Million dollar question... is this just an abortion thing? Does the GOP, as a whole, really find gay marriage problematic enough that they'll have the necessary support to go after it?

On the national level I doubt it, given it polls pretty highly even among Republicans. I think nationally Republicans have been way, way more willing to say the issue is settled than they ever have on abortion.

On the state level though...who knows.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,495
18,917
113
At least Kavanaugh and Alito (majority opinion) disagree explicitly on this.

I'm going to suggest that is a stretch....one Kavanaugh also said Roe was settled law in his confirmation hearing and two this is dicta because the case didn't deal with those issues. But Dobbs did severely restrict, possibly eliminate, the right to privacy which is the basis of Griswald and the court has created a "historical test" in place of scrutiny tests which would attack Obergefell and gay marriage protection under the EP.
 

nbanflfactory

HR Heisman
Aug 22, 2021
6,497
6,288
113
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision overturning abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade on Friday. The conservative justice, who was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, took aim at the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.


In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."

I thought only white men were full of hate and prejudice??

Lmfao Bahaha
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,910
4,023
113
You believe the liberal judges would ban guns? JFC.
When was the last time a liberal Supreme Court Justice voted to uphold the 2nd amendment? Heller and McDonald all were conservative in the majority, no liberals.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
Feb 9, 2013
18,662
52,036
113
Million dollar question... is this just an abortion thing? Does the GOP, as a whole, really find gay marriage problematic enough that they'll have the necessary support to go after it?
I don’t think they’ll get enough justices to go along, but, as others have pointed out, it doesn’t seem like Thomas is incorrect here from a legal perspective. The other justices seem to differentiate abortion because there’s an interest of the fetus but not sure that’s a legal distinction as much as a line they are drawing currently.

Bottom line, the only reason to go after same sex marriage is cruelty and hatred of LGBTQ people. There’s no other justification.
 

Colonoscopy

HR All-American
Silver Member
Feb 20, 2022
2,769
3,496
113
50
On the national level I doubt it, given it polls pretty highly even among Republicans. I think nationally Republicans have been way, way more willing to say the issue is settled than they ever have on abortion.

On the state level though...who knows.

That's my feeling... but you start wonder. I mean even the Texas GOP platform... it'll be interesting if that really stands, or if it's just a bunch of hot air from their extremists. (although if they capture power... who knows... although the response to them might be to moderate, which would be nice)
 

NoleATL

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
29,849
27,814
113
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

Thomas issued a concurring opinion with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision overturning abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade on Friday. The conservative justice, who was appointed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, took aim at the Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.


In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."

I'm sure its already been posted but also based on the right to privacy was legalizing interracial marriage. And, no where is it specifically mentioned in the constitution. Somehow I doubt he'll bring that one up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderland

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,755
10,218
113
That's my feeling... but you start wonder. I mean even the Texas GOP platform... it'll be interesting if that really stands, or if it's just a bunch of hot air from their extremists. (although if they capture power... who knows... although the response to them might be to moderate, which would be nice)

Exactly.
 

NoleATL

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
29,849
27,814
113
On the national level I doubt it, given it polls pretty highly even among Republicans. I think nationally Republicans have been way, way more willing to say the issue is settled
But will they proactively vote for it on the state level? Nope...
 

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
72,712
37,730
113
you can’t always get what you want!
I don’t think they’ll get enough justices to go along, but, as others have pointed out, it doesn’t seem like Thomas is incorrect here from a legal perspective. The other justices seem to differentiate abortion because there’s an interest of the fetus but not sure that’s a legal distinction as much as a line they are drawing currently.

Bottom line, the only reason to go after same sex marriage is cruelty and hatred of LGBTQ people. There’s no other justification.
And you don’t think thee are folks who hate the LGBTQ lifestyle and believe It is their duty to outlaw it at all costs? They call themselves Christians….. Evangelical Christians.
 

RNHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,910
4,023
113
And you don’t think thee are folks who hate the LGBTQ lifestyle and believe It is their duty to outlaw it at all costs? They call themselves Christians….. Evangelical Christians.
Hate the sin not the sinner,