Supreme Court abortion decision reminds me to enjoy LGBTQ rights while I still can

At the beginning of Pride Month, I told many of my friends to enjoy sodomy legally while you still can.

I think that was a funny way of saying it, but I was dead serious. I’ve always understood that misogyny and homophobia go together. One informs the other, so if the law has been conspiring and scheming for decades to overthrow Roe v. Wade and ban abortion, it must be assumed that other rights – especially all rights associated with the LGBTQ community – are the next.

Frustrating as it was reading last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, at least Judge Clarence Thomas hasn’t bothered to pretend otherwise.

In a separate, unanimous opinion, Thomas has questioned a number of previous court rulings including Obergefell v. Hodges, which instituted marriage equality after same-sex couples had the right to marry nationwide, and Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a 1973 Texas law criminalizing the act of sodomy. Thomas also referred to Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use birth control without government intervention.

“In future cases, we must reconsider all substantive precedents of this Court, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Because any substantive decision about a fair trial is “demonstrably wrong,” Thomas wrote. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ with respect to those established in those precedents.” Then, he addedafter “putting aside these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.

Yet some would have us believe that there is no reason to fear a direct warning.

Among them are Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who argued in a performance on “Fox News Sunday” that Majority Opinion author Samuel Alito “set the right tone” by writing that the Supreme Court’s quashing of Roe v. Wade does not jeopardize decisions protecting contraception and same-sex marriage.

“These other privacy issues, like birth control, don’t relate to the potential for life,” Graham said:† “He made a distinction between same-sex marriage and birth control, which I think will win the day.”

Yes, Alito wrote that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents not related to abortion ‘because the exercise of rights established by other rulings’ does not destroy ‘potential life’”, but his previous opinions on marriage equality suggests a disdain that won’t be curbed for long now that the numbers are in favor of the right.

It wasn’t until 2020 when Thomasin an opinion joined by Alito, writing: “By choosing to favor a new constitutional right over the” religious freedom interests that are explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only they can solve.”

The judges gave their opinion in a case involving the notorious Kentucky Registrar Kim Davis sued for refusal issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, but it’s a new day and a clearer majority. This is especially true given Thomas and Alito’s belief that they are somehow victims of opposing the civil rights of others.

“Thanks to Obergefell, those with genuine religious beliefs regarding marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society,” Thomas wrote.

As he sees it: “Obergefell allows courts and governments to label religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their concerns about religious freedom much more easily dismissed.”

Alito mirrored this one comments in a 2020 speech to the Federalist Society. These are not the opinions and words of people who intend to let go of their grievances. Jim Obergefell himself understands this.

Speak with People magazine of Thomas’ view that his case should be quashed like Roe v. Wade, Obergefell said: “It just pisses me off and scares me that we have the highest court in the country that wants to harm hundreds of thousands – millions – of people around the world … the country and puts marriages in limbo and prevents people from legally binding to the person they love.”

And noting the irony that the 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving v. Virginia, allowed interracial marriage, he added: “Especially when [Thomas’] own marriage is the result of a Supreme Court decision.”

I doubt Clarence Thomas cares much about irony or hypocrisy. This is a person who did not feel fit to to retreat from matters related to an insurrection that the looks more and more like his wife participated in. A man credibly accused of sexual harassment who feels compelled to decide on women’s rights. Thomas now works like a shadow chief judge and now openly opposes his next goals, calling on conservatives to bring him business.

It didn’t take long for them to heed his call.

During a Friday appearance on NewsNation’s “In balance with Leland VittertTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would support the Supreme Court to reconsider the cases Thomas mentioned, going even further.

When asked if he would feel comfortable as Attorney General defending a law banning sodomy again, Paxton replied:“Yes, look, my job is to defend state law and I will continue to do so. That is my job under the Constitution and I am certainly willing and able to do it.”

It only takes one case, and much to my embarrassment as a native, Texas likes to lead the way in its vision of a more repressive and gun-bearing America.

As for marriage equality, other oppressive opportunists include Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, who: said at a news conference last week that he would support the Supreme Court in reviewing the same-sex marriage ruling. Utah’s constitutional ban on same-sex unions still stands and could be reinstated if the Supreme Court reversed its previous decision.

They heard Thomas loud and clear, and I don’t have much faith in the other conservative members of the court like Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in his solo consent, “Overruling Roe doesn’t mean overruling those precedents, and threatening those precedents.” or doubt.”

I don’t trust Man accused of assault, his colleague the apparently ex-maidservant, or even their chief justice, the man who spent decades trying to kill the Voting Rights Act. I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2024 or the year after, the rights to birth control, sodomy, and marriage equality are crushed in the right’s attempt to totally alienate the right to privacy.

The Republican Party has launched a full-scale attack on the LGBTQ community, both in terms of rhetoric and legislation resulting in in an increase in anti-LGBTQ violence† The Democrats haven’t done much to fight this national campaign. Not enough is said to defend the dignity, humanity and civil rights of the LGBTQ community. There is a target on our backs, and while I don’t believe all hope is lost or that conservatives will eventually win their mission to wipe out and contain us, they are clear with the plans and the means to take them out. feed. We should listen.

They hate us. They don’t believe we are equal. They want to remind us of this by means of a judicial fiat.

They won’t win, but we need to be better prepared for the battle ahead.