3 ms·
> In Thomas's mind, one has long-standing historical precedence where the other doesn't. That would be an anomaly in setting judicial precedent. If legal prece
by manuelabeledo 4y ago
> In Thomas's mind, one has long-standing historical precedence where the other doesn't.
That would be an anomaly in setting judicial precedent. If legal precedent was formally acknowledged for historical reasons, then we would be having a really long conversation on civil rights, _all_ civil rights.
And the issue may not be gay marriage, but straight up sodomy laws, which were introduced as religious inspired laws, most extensively Judeo-Christian. For these to stand, we would need to ignore the separation of church and state.
- ModernMech 4y agoSpeaking of sodomy laws, that is exactly the conversation that is unfolding right now: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," This is from Justice Clarence Thomas. Lawrence v. Texas if you recall was the Supreme Court decision that struck down sodomy laws.