Connect with us

News

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, justice suggests gay marriage could be next?

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, justice suggests gay marriage could be next?

Published

on

Roe v Wade is overturned in landmark Supreme Court decision sparking mass abortion rights protests

As the Supreme Court announced on Friday that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the court should also reconsider its previous opinions establishing rights to contraception, same-sex partnerships, and gay marriage as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ committed in those precedents,” Thomas said in a concurring opinion, citing precedent-setting judgments that protected the right to contraception, the ability to engage in private, consenting sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

Even though no other justices joined Thomas in his statement, it nonetheless rang the warning bell that Democrats and proponents for homosexual rights have feared ever since a draft of Friday’s judgment overturning Roe v. Wade was made public earlier this year. Thomas’ opinion functioned as the alarm bell.

In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court stated that the right to abortion is not a form of “liberty” that is safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The court also stated that the right to abortion is not protected under the clause that states shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

According to Thomas, the same principle applies to the remaining rights he enumerated. In addition to this, he urged the court to go even further and completely do away with substantive due process, which is the legal framework that underpins those rights.

“In future cases, we should ‘follow the text of the Constitution,’ which says that there are some rights that can’t be taken away and that people have a right to due process when their life, liberty, or property is taken away,” he wrote. “Substantive due process goes against this command in the Bible and has hurt our country in many ways. So, we should get rid of it as soon as possible from our legal system.”

“In future instances,” he wrote, “we should ‘follow the language of the Constitution, which establishes certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away and adds a right to due process where life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.'” “Substantive due process conflicts with this textual demand and has caused a great deal of damage to our nation. Therefore, we should eradicate it from our legal system as soon as possible.”


Top Stories