Clarence Thomas’ Bizarre and Twisted Gay Marriage Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas isn’t the brightest star in the sky and his fervent dissent of the Supreme Court’s historic decision to invalidate same-sex marriage bans strengthens that conclusion.
His bizarre argument, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, quibbles with the definition of liberty itself. “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits,” Thomas writes.
Working from this principle, Thomas insists that the petitioners in the case “have in no way been deprived” of their liberty. “They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please.
Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.” And yet he takes the argument even further—because human dignity “has long been understood in this country to be innate,” here’s who else Thomas thinks hasn’t been deprived of it:
Wow. Words elude me.
About Post Author
Professor Mike
More Stories
MAGA World Part One
I like trying new things just for fun, like this story. You don’t have to like it, but I hope...
The Day My Identity Was Stolen
This is a true story. It happened to me. Don’t let yourself be a victim. If you are, there are...
When the Clock Stops
I’m a man of a certain age, as they say, although I’ve no real idea what that means. Aren’t we...
What About That Mysterious Signal From Space?
Did you know that on August 15, 1977, Ohio State University’s Big Ear radio telescope detected a strong radio signal...
Please Stop Killing Our Children
Trigger Warning: This is a fictionalized account of a school shooting, a common occurrence in the United States. It contains...
Alexa Needs To Stop Talking
I like a TV running as background noise throughout the day when I work. It used to be music, but...
having a number of gay friends, men and women, I haven’t any who would get married in a church if you paid them. Can’t say I blame em either!
I never got married in a church either Norman. We got married at sunset on the beach by a justice of the peace type person. No reference to Lawd hammercy and his minions, other than a tiny prayer, since my ‘rents had already passed away and I wanted them to be a part of it. Wasn’t a Jeebusy prayer thing either, because the ‘rents wouldn’t have wanted me to do that, even if they were there, due to the fact they knew my atheist leanings. The state gives the officiant the power to conduct the ceremony, not god or his minions, the STATE where you live. Ever heard of a church divorce, no– because it wouldn’t be legal.
Who gives a fuck what he says. Everyone can be married now, no exceptions. This weekend is going to be fuckin awesome up in the city, for the PRIDE festivities and I cannot wait.
WHAT?!?
Does he even listen to what he’s saying? It definitely paints a better picture of representing his failure to be heard for the most part; does he even speak English? I don’t even know what language he could be trying to emulate!
I’ve never liked him, and now he just demonstrates part of what I don’t like about him: in order to be a member of the Supreme Court, you should be expected to reason logically! Not the case here!