Gay Marriage
DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) enacted September 21, 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Like other controversial laws (i.e., Roe v Wade, ObamaCare), the debate continues over the definition of marriage in America. To add to the debate, the Obama Justice Department has taken the very unusual stance of saying it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage. After the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare, the Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court for a quick review of gay marriage law. Keep up with the ongoing debate below. On June 26, 2013, The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote. The What you need to know about Marriage guide prepared by The Heritage Foundation answers the top 15 questions on the subject of marriage.

'...the other legal rights based on the theory may still be valid...'

6/26/22
from The Gray Area:
6/26/22:

According to the Washington Post, and much emotion & hyberbole within the legacy media, Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote on Friday that the high court should open up for review other precedents that may be deemed “demonstrably erroneous” ... including 'extreme positions' on contraception & same sex marriage. The subject lights more fire under the progressive left's political narratives about extreme Conservative positions and as such get a lot of media play. This is selective reporting regarding what he said. The fact is that, as is usually the case, the media is leaving out the 'rest of the story' concerning what he said. The rest of the story is she said in that opinion, Based on the reasoning in the Dobbs decision, the court should now revisit other cases based on the “substantive due process” theory, Thomas said. Notably, the justice wrote that the other legal rights based on the theory may still be valid, though the court must look for a different textual basis for them. Clearly he was focusing on the legal and Constitutional issues, not the questions of specific rights. It is those law & Constitutional errors he said 'need to be corrected', not the rights. Those specific rights could still work under a different, and presumably more accurate, Constitutional provision(s). Thus not setting up erroneous precedents for future Courts to have to 'erroneously' decide. It is certainly reasonable to expect that people with skin in the game of those 'specific rights' could feel uncomfortable about any 'review' of the cases on which they were based. But, blaming Justice Thomas for attacking those rights directly is just not true. It's more of the position the left takes on the Constitution, which is, the Constitution is an obstacle, so use it any way you want to get what we want politically. This and related stories make the issue conservative justice Thomas, not the law or the Constitution. Whenever you see a headline like this in the legacy media, know there is more to the story, and that 'more' will usually change the headline for accuracy.

More From The Washington Post:

More From Daily Wire:



365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )