On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, could same-sex marriage be next to go?

Justice Thomas suggests the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.

www.houstonchronicle.com

"Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

 

[coldseat]

some people (I will self censor myself)

Conservative Texas Lawyer Targets PrEP Access After Abortion Rights

PrEP drugs "encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior," says Texas abortion law author Jonathan Mitchell in a federal lawsuit targeting the antiviral medications.

www.advocate.com

Mitchell now has set his sights on Descovy and Truvada, two medications that help prevent HIV transmission when taken as PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, because those medications enable homosexual behavior, the suit states.

In the case Kelley v. the United States of America, filed in federal court in 2020, Mitchell represents several clients who object to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance providers cover, among other things, preventive medications specifically for PrEP.

“The PrEP mandate forces religious employers to provide coverage for drugs that facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,” the lawsuit states. “It also compels religious employers and religious individuals who purchase health insurance to subsidize these behaviors as a condition of purchasing health insurance.”

fork that piece of shirt!

 

[Optimus Prime]

Senator Ted Cruz has claimed that the US Supreme Court should never have legalized gay marriage.

The conservative also suggested that Republican-led states would push to overturn the precedent established by the Supreme Court protecting gay marriage rights across the country, following their successful campaign to overturn Roe v Wade which ended federal abortion rights.

During an episode of his podcast on Saturday, the Texas Republican argued that the Obergefell ruling in 2015 – which required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages from other states – was a “vulnerable” precedent.

“Obergefell, like Roe vs Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell — some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships,” Cruz said.

“Had the Court not ruled in Obergefell, the democratic process would have continued to operate,” he added.

He went on to argue that Democrats should have convinced their “fellow citizens” of their cause instead of allowing the Court to decide that “every state must sanction gay marriage”.

“I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the Court overreaching,” the senator continued……

Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was ‘clearly wrong’ to legalise gay marriage

Democrats warn that other legal precedents could be in danger from Supreme Court’s conservative majority

www.independent.co.uk

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Senator Ted Cruz has claimed that the US Supreme Court should never have legalized gay marriage.

The conservative also suggested that Republican-led states would push to overturn the precedent established by the Supreme Court protecting gay marriage rights across the country, following their successful campaign to overturn Roe v Wade which ended federal abortion rights.

During an episode of his podcast on Saturday, the Texas Republican argued that the Obergefell ruling in 2015 – which required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages from other states – was a “vulnerable” precedent.

“Obergefell, like Roe vs Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell — some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships,” Cruz said.

“Had the Court not ruled in Obergefell, the democratic process would have continued to operate,” he added.

He went on to argue that Democrats should have convinced their “fellow citizens” of their cause instead of allowing the Court to decide that “every state must sanction gay marriage”.

“I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the Court overreaching,” the senator continued……

Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was ‘clearly wrong’ to legalise gay marriage

Democrats warn that other legal precedents could be in danger from Supreme Court’s conservative majority

www.independent.co.uk

Clarence Thomas planted the seeds and Cruz is watering the soil. I will assume the first test case will spring out of Tejas.

 

[zztop]

some good news, although...it'll probably not pass the senate :

The House voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats, which would codify same-sex marriage into federal law and bolster other marriage protections.

The bill would also formally repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

some good news, although...it'll probably not pass the senate :

The House voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats, which would codify same-sex marriage into federal law and bolster other marriage protections.

The bill would also formally repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Hell, as bipartisan a passage that is, there's no way the Senate get 10 Republicans to cross over. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if Manchin comes out against it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Get ready to add “ended affirmative action” to that list
====================

Civil rights groups, university professors, teachers unions, current and former US senators, and dozens of corporations on Monday filed amicus briefs to the supreme court advocating for upholding the long-held precedent allowing the use of race to increase diversity in college admissions.

For decades, the court has repeatedly affirmed that colleges and universities can factor in students’ race and ethnicity in determining which students are admitted, a process known as affirmative action.

But as the US supreme court hears oral arguments this fall in two cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), following a historic term in which the court abolished the decades-long right to abortion, the court’s conservative supermajority threatens to overturn yet another longstanding precedent.

In one brief, current students and alumni at Harvard argued that if the supreme court barred Harvard from considering race as a factor, the university would “miss out on extraordinary students … whose ethno-racial identities were central to their applications and who might have otherwise been overlooked”.

In anotherrepresenting more than 60 businesses and corporations, attorneys argued that businesses “depend on universities to recruit, admit and train highly qualified, racially and ethnically diverse students to become the employees and business leaders of the future”……

Supreme court could strike blow against affirmative action in Harvard case ruling

Court’s conservative supermajority threatens to overturn yet another longstanding precedent as it hears arguments in two cases

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US supreme court, with its new rightwing supermajority, is transforming America at breakneck speed. In a single judicial year, it overturned the right to an abortion, unleashed legally carried guns on to city streets, stymied government action to combat the climate crisis and Covid pandemic, and took a hatchet to the time-honored separation of church and state.

Seasoned observers described the 2021-22 termthat ended in June as perhaps the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history. The six rightwing justices – three of them appointed by Donald Trump – demonstrated an iron grip over blockbuster cases.

The three liberal-leaning justices, by equal measure – Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – were outnumbered and bloodied. When the court reconvenes in October, the retired Breyer will be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, but the same punishing 6-to-3 dynamic will prevail.

Bloodied but unbowed. The three liberal justices may be in the minority, but they are fast emerging as a vital resistance to the Trump-instigated judicial revolution now under way.

That resistance is reflected in the dissenting opinions produced by the three. Not only were liberal dissents more in evidence in 2021-22 – Sotomayor alone wrote 13, more than she has in any previous term – but the language deployed in them was also direct and unrestrained.

The dissents went beyond polite disagreements over jurisprudence. They amounted to the sounding of an alarm, alerting the nation that equal rights, constitutional government, and even what it is to be an American, are all under threat.

Here are six of the most visceral warnings contained in the dissents of the three liberal-leaning justices.

1. Attacking equal rights and individual freedoms

Over 60 white-hot pages of dissent, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan tore into the majority ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Pointing out that such a right had been the law of the land for half a century, they decried the ruling as a full-on attack on an individual’s freedom……

Bloodied but unbowed: liberal justices wield dissents as weapon of resistance

The three justices may be in the minority, but their opinions are sounding an alarm that equal rights are under threat by the new rightwing supermajority of the supreme court

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

If you thought the Supreme Court term that just concluded was a disaster, brace yourself for the next one. The conservative justices will shift their focus to another long-standing goal: outlawing affirmative action in higher education.


The outcome in two cases before the court, challenging admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, appears even more assured than was the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The conservative justices, who have long bristled at anything that smacks of a racial preference, seem poised to overturn decades of precedent letting colleges and universities consider racial diversity as a factor when admitting students.


But a spate of briefs defending Harvard and UNC offer compelling arguments that should give the conservative majority pause.

In their recent rulings expanding gun rights and eliminating constitutional protection for abortion, the justices emphasized the importance of history — looking to the laws and practices in place at the time the relevant constitutional provision was enacted to determine its original meaning……….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/05/harvard-affirmative-action-supreme-court-case/

 

[eman623]

It's important to note that Thomas is not opposed to gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or contraception. He just thinks the USSC cases that "settled" these controversies were wrongly decided and short-circuited the robust legislative and cultural debates that were working themselves out in society.

In the case of Griswold, there wasn't even a controversy. By the 1960's, the law banning contraception in CT was obsolete and not even enforced. The Griswolds had to call the cops in, sit them down and in great detail explain what laws they had broken when they handed out condoms in their clinic.

Unlike abortion which continues to be hotly debated and was not settled by Roe or Casey, despite the courts best attempts otherwise, the other issues Thomas enumerated are settled now. He couldn't get even a single justice to join his dissent. I don't see those decisions going away anytime soon. Probably never.

The Dems in Congress had a filibuster-proof majority in 2009. That would have been the time to pass the Respect for Marriage act. To try to resurrect it now is mostly just virtue signaling IMO. If I were in Congress, I would have been one of the 47 Reps to vote for it, but I've never had a problem with gay marriage. California had a couple of propositions on it in the 90's and 00's and I voted in favor of it every time.

Good thing Congress isn't busy on anything else and has lots of free time to work on gay marriage. Nothing else important going on in the country these days, amirite?

 

[SFIDC3]

It's important to note that Thomas is not opposed to gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or contraception. He just thinks the USSC cases that "settled" these controversies were wrongly decided and short-circuited the robust legislative and cultural debates that were working themselves out in society.

In the case of Griswold, there wasn't even a controversy. By the 1960's, the law banning contraception in CT was obsolete and not even enforced. The Griswolds had to call the cops in, sit them down and in great detail explain what laws they had broken when they handed out condoms in their clinic.

Unlike abortion which continues to be hotly debated and was not settled by Roe or Casey, despite the courts best attempts otherwise, the other issues Thomas enumerated are settled now. He couldn't get even a single justice to join his dissent. I don't see those decisions going away anytime soon. Probably never.

The Dems in Congress had a filibuster-proof majority in 2009. That would have been the time to pass the Respect for Marriage act. To try to resurrect it now is mostly just virtue signaling IMO. If I were in Congress, I would have been one of the 47 Reps to vote for it, but I've never had a problem with gay marriage. California had a couple of propositions on it in the 90's and 00's and I voted in favor of it every time.

Good thing Congress isn't busy on anything else and has lots of free time to work on gay marriage. Nothing else important going on in the country these days, amirite?

Something about peeing on a leg and insisting it’s rain applies here I believe….

 

[eman623]

Something about peeing on a leg and insisting it’s rain applies here I believe….

Thanks for adding nothing of any significance to the conversation.

Why does that apply here?

 

[MT15]

It's important to note that Thomas is not opposed to gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or contraception. He just thinks the USSC cases that "settled" these controversies were wrongly decided and short-circuited the robust legislative and cultural debates that were working themselves out in society.

In the case of Griswold, there wasn't even a controversy. By the 1960's, the law banning contraception in CT was obsolete and not even enforced. The Griswolds had to call the cops in, sit them down and in great detail explain what laws they had broken when they handed out condoms in their clinic.

Unlike abortion which continues to be hotly debated and was not settled by Roe or Casey, despite the courts best attempts otherwise, the other issues Thomas enumerated are settled now. He couldn't get even a single justice to join his dissent. I don't see those decisions going away anytime soon. Probably never.

The Dems in Congress had a filibuster-proof majority in 2009. That would have been the time to pass the Respect for Marriage act. To try to resurrect it now is mostly just virtue signaling IMO. If I were in Congress, I would have been one of the 47 Reps to vote for it, but I've never had a problem with gay marriage. California had a couple of propositions on it in the 90's and 00's and I voted in favor of it every time.

Good thing Congress isn't busy on anything else and has lots of free time to work on gay marriage. Nothing else important going on in the country these days, amirite?

Abortion was very much settled by Casey and Roe. Hotly debated by about 30% of the population, maybe. About 70% wanted Roe to stay in effect. Here’s a hint - about the same 30% want to outlaw gay marriage as well. If we don’t vote more democrats into Congress, they will get their way on that as well.

 

[SFIDC3]

Thanks for adding nothing of any significance to the conversation.

Why does that apply here?

See below…..your BS meter is very high…..

Abortion was very much settled by Casey and Roe. Hotly debated by about 30% of the population, maybe. About 70% wanted Roe to stay in effect. Here’s a hint - about the same 30% want to outlaw gay marriage as well. If we don’t vote more democrats into Congress, they will get their way on that as well.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Here’s a hint - about the same 30% want to outlaw gay marriage as well. If we don’t vote more democrats into Congress, they will get their way on that as well.

Among other things

 

[eman623]

See below…..

A couple of things.

Some number of the 70% that wanted Roe to stay in place may have thought that overturning it would ban it nationwide. That's not the case and is more a reflection of people's general political apathy and the willful deception practiced by much of the news media

Secondly, the 30% that hotly debated abortion were not uniformly distributed. There's some states where it's probably close to 90%, and other states where it's a distinct minority. Now that Roe is dead, the states that hotly debated it will actually be able to make their wishes known. And the states that didn't want it to change can keep the same policies.

OTOH, there are only two states where a minority of people think gay marriage should not be legal. Is it okay to force them to go along with a policy they don't want? Arguably, no. But as a practical matter they simply don't have the momentum to change Obergefell.

 

[MT15]

A couple of things.

Some number of the 70% that wanted Roe to stay in place may have thought that overturning it would ban it nationwide. That's not the case and is more a reflection of people's general political apathy and the willful deception practiced by much of the news media

Secondly, the 30% that hotly debated abortion were not uniformly distributed. There's some states where it's probably close to 90%, and other states where it's a distinct minority. Now that Roe is dead, the states that hotly debated it will actually be able to make their wishes known. And the states that didn't want it to change can keep the same policies.

OTOH, there are only two states where a minority of people think gay marriage should not be legal. Is it okay to force them to go along with a policy they don't want? Arguably, no. But as a practical matter they simply don't have the momentum to change Obergefell.

You can spin and spin, but you’re basically just spitballing stuff without any real data. If Nebraska, a very deep red state, can vote to protect abortion access by a 2-1 margin, I’d be willing to bet there isn’t a state in the union where 90% of people want an abortion ban. Not a single one.

Your argument amounts to - let’s let some states strip away a woman’s right to control her reproductive health, and that is fine. Basic human rights should not depend on the state you happen to live in. That was the whole reason Jim Crow had to be eradicated by the federal government in the 1960s. We will just have to do it again, only women can vote out these anti-abortionists. And they will.

 

[eman623]

Another couple of interesting stats.

75% of Americans think abortion should not be decided by the Supreme Court

New Poll Shows Americans Essentially Support Overturning Roe, Want Heartbeat Abortion Ban - LifeNews.com

A new national poll conducted by Harvard University and the Harris polling firm confirms that Americans essentially support the Supreme Curt overturning Roe v. Wade and want heartbeat laws that protect babies from abortions when their hearts begin beating. Released yesterday, the poll shows 75%...

www.lifenews.com

25% of LIV Americans, including 31% of independents and 27% of Democrats think overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationally.

Poll: One-Quarter of Americans Falsely Believe Overturning Roe Would Make Abortion Illegal Nationwide

One quarter of Americans falsely believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal nationwide.

www.breitbart.com