In his written opinion on Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that three other cases that rely on the same constitutional foundation as Roe v. Wade be examined for review.  They are the Griswold v. ConnecticutLawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges cases.  These declared laws against contraception, gay-sex, and gay marriage respectively to be unconstitutional.

In the opinion of the majority, the overturning of Roe v. Wade should not set a precedent for any other constitutional issues based on the privacy argument.  But Thomas wrote otherwise.  He said they should be reconsidered.

While Thomas’ thinking would be worthy of a law school debate, it was not the time to raise such theoretical issues – especially since the majority opinion clearly stated that the Roe decision was not to open other doors.

It was certainly a bad time to suggest otherwise.  One of the arguments being raised by the very angry opponents of the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is that it would result in the elimination of constitutional protections for gay intimacy and marriage – and the use of contraception.  They raised those issues – whether valid or not — to build more support for their efforts to use Roe v. Wade as an election issue against Republicans.

It would have been a ridiculous argument until Thomas gave it legitimacy in the political sphere.

Regardless of Thomas’ position on those issues, the majority of the Supreme Court disagrees.  There is virtually no chance that the Court will take up these cases and decide to overturn them.  Thomas gave the pro-abortion advocates false credibility.

None of the cases cited by Thomas involve the termination of a developing human.  There is no rational argument to deny gay couples sexual intimacy or the right to marry.  Homosexuality has been accepted and normalized in American society long before the high Court made gay marriage legal.  There were already widespread contractual unions between gay individuals that provided virtually all the benefits of marriage.  More and more businesses were recognizing gay couples’ contractual unions. 

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I favor maximum freedom for all Americans.  It is the overarching promise of the Constitution – the pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  I do not favor legislating the sexual practices of anyone as long as they are not overtly harmful to others.

Contraception also does not take a life.  In fact, both sperm and human eggs are created and disposed of as part of nature’s sexual cycle.  In addition, with bans and restrictions on abortion, contraception should be encouraged.

There is no threat to gay relationships or the use of contraception … none … nada.  In arbitrarily raising these issues, Thomas only added confusion, division, and hostility to the already overcharged national debate.  He should have kept silent and saved his fine-point constitutional theories for the university lecture tour.  

So, there ’tis.

2 thoughts on “Justice Thomas Errs in Raising Gay Marriage and Contraception Issues”
  1. Justice Thomas did just what was on the docket and did exactly what the constitution says. If there wasn’t gay “marriages” which I am totally against (civil unions only) not in churches (this isn’t on Thomas, it’s on the Pope and other leaders of the church and synagogues). Maybe we wouldn’t have these freaks out there trying to hurt kids.

  2. I agree that the timing to bring up banning gay marriage was bad, but bring it up the SC should. Majorities of Americans are against gay marriage and it should never have been permitted. The Civil Ceremony was ok and I could support the jest of marriage but not the word marriage. Same sex relationships are not the same as man/woman marriage and should never have been sanctioned by the SC. I look forward to the day when this is set straight.

Comments are closed.