4 ms·

Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Should Be Next: Clarence Thomas

24 points by Tozen 4y ago

pseingatl 4y ago
Strange he left interracial marriage off the menu.
- warning26 4y ago
  Especially so, considering the rationale was the same.
- aluminum96 4y ago
  Indeed, the opposition to only some substantive due process decisions, and not others, seems a bit political.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  For anyone who doesn't get the subtext here: Clarence Thomas' wife is white, so it's pretty convenient that the due process decision that happens to affect him directly is not on the chopping block.
smm11 4y ago
Elections have consequences. I have friends who are a same-sex-couple and militant female defenders. They vote straight R. Their heads have all but exploded.
- N1H1L 4y ago
- teg4n_ 4y ago
  Sounds like they had a preexisting condition with their heads even before the explosion.
- aluminum96 4y ago
  Sounds like your friends are pretty extreme outliers. I don't know a single LGBTQ person who votes for Republicans... and I know a lot. I suspect it's less than 10%, maybe less than 5%.
  - bongoman37 4y ago
    [dead]
pedalpete 4y ago
I struggle to understand how the politics in America can on the one hand, restrict personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, and at the same time, allow free use of firearms, which are clearly more detrimental to the public. I suspect people will say this is a partisan issue, and blame the Republicans, and I kinda get that, but can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? I look at all other development nations (note, I'm not American), and I wonder how America can stand out so boldly backward on these issues. If somebody can point me to another developed country that has such seemingly (I'll be polite) backward policies, please let me know.
- quantified 4y ago
  The "if you can't ask someone to wear a mask, how can you ask them to unwillingly stay pregnant and gain a big C section scar" question is a good one too.
- Originami 4y ago
- warning26 4y ago
  > can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? Not to deny that the democrats certainly have their own sets of internal issues, but a key factor is that the US election system is designed to ensure that republican areas have far more voting power than non-republican areas. Take the Senate, for example. Since each state has exactly two senators regardless of population, a voter in California has far less power than one in, say, Arkansas. In this environment, it's basically impossible for the democrats to achive meaningful policy goals.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Sure but that issue is compounded by Democrat's ineffectiveness. They don't try to generate chances that they can take advantage of as well as Republican's do. Dakota's split [1] provide 4 Republican senators while California only provides 2 Democratic senators. Republican Justices have no problem with overriding a state on how to conduct its elections [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

24 points by Tozen 4y ago

pseingatl 4y ago

Strange he left interracial marriage off the menu.

warning26 4y ago
Especially so, considering the rationale was the same.
aluminum96 4y ago
Indeed, the opposition to only some substantive due process decisions, and not others, seems a bit political.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
For anyone who doesn't get the subtext here: Clarence Thomas' wife is white, so it's pretty convenient that the due process decision that happens to affect him directly is not on the chopping block.

smm11 4y ago

Elections have consequences. I have friends who are a same-sex-couple and militant female defenders. They vote straight R. Their heads have all but exploded.

N1H1L 4y ago
teg4n_ 4y ago
Sounds like they had a preexisting condition with their heads even before the explosion.
aluminum96 4y ago
Sounds like your friends are pretty extreme outliers. I don't know a single LGBTQ person who votes for Republicans... and I know a lot. I suspect it's less than 10%, maybe less than 5%.
- bongoman37 4y ago
  [dead]

pedalpete 4y ago

I struggle to understand how the politics in America can on the one hand, restrict personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, and at the same time, allow free use of firearms, which are clearly more detrimental to the public. I suspect people will say this is a partisan issue, and blame the Republicans, and I kinda get that, but can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? I look at all other development nations (note, I'm not American), and I wonder how America can stand out so boldly backward on these issues. If somebody can point me to another developed country that has such seemingly (I'll be polite) backward policies, please let me know.

quantified 4y ago
The "if you can't ask someone to wear a mask, how can you ask them to unwillingly stay pregnant and gain a big C section scar" question is a good one too.
Originami 4y ago
warning26 4y ago
> can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? Not to deny that the democrats certainly have their own sets of internal issues, but a key factor is that the US election system is designed to ensure that republican areas have far more voting power than non-republican areas. Take the Senate, for example. Since each state has exactly two senators regardless of population, a voter in California has far less power than one in, say, Arkansas. In this environment, it's basically impossible for the democrats to achive meaningful policy goals.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Sure but that issue is compounded by Democrat's ineffectiveness. They don't try to generate chances that they can take advantage of as well as Republican's do. Dakota's split [1] provide 4 Republican senators while California only provides 2 Democratic senators. Republican Justices have no problem with overriding a state on how to conduct its elections [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore