Justice Clarence Thomas Says Same-Sex Marriage Next to Be Overturned

WASHINGTON D.C. — (06-24-22) — The U.S. Supreme Court’ conservative majority officially announced that they Gay Marriage and Contraception need to be overturned as soon as possible.  Not only have the conservative packed court set women’s rights back 50 years, they are now setting their sites on overturning same-sex marriage and making contraception illegal.

Anti-LGBTQ Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion  to overturn Roe v Wade that same-sex Marriage and Contraception are next to be overturned by the 6-3 packed conservative court.

Conservative supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that cases granting rights like contraception and same-sex marriage should be reconsidered under the same legal theory.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” Alito summarized the ruling at the beginning of the opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court held the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” did not confer a right to an abortion. In interpreting what is meant by “liberty, The Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.” wrote Alito.

Thomas’ concurring opinion focused on this Fourteenth Amendment issue.

“I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly holds that there is no constitutional right to abortion,” he wrote. “Respondents invoke one source for that right: the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause. Such a right is neither ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’”

Thomas continued, saying that as the majority held in Dobbs, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was a guarantee that the government would not deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” without complying with the law, and not in and of itself a grant of any specific rights.

“The Due Process Clause at most guarantees process,” Thomas wrote. “It does not, as the Court’s substantive due process cases suppose, ‘forbi[d] the government to infringe certain “fundamental” liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided.’”

For that reason, argued Thomas, other “demonstrably erroneous decisions” that had been decided based on substantive due process should be reconsidered, and specifically listed Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, granting right of married persons to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (2003, right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, right to same-sex marriage).

“[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” wrote Thomas. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

He also called for examining whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that “protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights.”

Article by: Paul Goldberg, Staff Writer

Sign Up Below for #JRLCHARTS Breaking News and Follow @JRLCHARTS Daily on Twitter