It’s exactly for those situations that the 9th Amendment was written. I don’t think anyone would argue against reproductive choice being an unenumerated right and even presuming right to privacy is one as well, the connection is tenuous at best to contraception, abortion and marriage re: producing crotchspawn.
And specific to your objection that reproductive freedom is not in the constitution, neither is the right to privacy that Griswold and Roe were decided on. That was considered a 9th Amendment unenumerated right as well.
If contraception and abortion are not reproductive choice what are they?
I agree with you that the Ninth is underused (and more than enough for Griswold and Roe) but I remember a certain Republican nominee to the court that didn’t think it could be seen as more than an “ink blot” on the Constitution.
IMHO, Douglas was right about the logical and necessary “penumbras, formed by emanations” and they form an easier way to new rights than simply ‘court made-up rights’.
The position they’re defending is a post-hoc rationalization designed specifically to justify discrimination against queer people. I won’t speak to their personal motivations in pushing this argument in this thread, but the argument is what it is.
IIRC Griswold was about anonymously buying condoms for an unmarried couple so in that case no. And how is getting an abortion vs not getting one a medical privacy issue? Who is telling whom what? And is it a privacy issue before the third trimester but not after (I believe Roe originally allowed bans after the 6th month)?
Maybe you clearly see it, but I don’t and many others don’t so while I agree with Griswold and Roe as decisions, I disagree with the rationale the Court provided.
To answer your question, it is not an obvious part of a general right to medical privacy.
It came across to me as, this is how it will be framed, and also this is why the legal reasoning was bad, although the result was good.
But, I understand what you’re saying, and I’m only white knighting so far.
Anyway, back to the subject of the thread – unbelievably hypocritical Kim Davis can go fuck herself. Marriage is so sacred that she had to try it a few times. What an asshole.
That argument might have made sense a hundred years ago, when there was tremendous social and legal pressure to not have sex unless you were married, and divorce was considered scandalous and shameful. So if you wanted to have sex, you got married, and that would almost certainly lead to children, which you would raise together because you had to stay married. If you believe that it’s imperative that children be raised in stable two-parent homes, it’s exactly the system you’d design.
But now, we have contraception and there’s basically no social stigma against divorce or sex outside of marriage, even when it leads to unmarried straight people cohabiting and/or coparenting. Straight couples are no longer almost certain to produce children, and if they do there is a fifty-fifty chance that they’ll divorce. And while all this has been happening, none of these “marriage traditionalists” has ever suggested changing the general rule that any two adults of opposite sexes can get married whenever they want.
It’s not that gay people are trying to redefine marriage, it’s that straight people have already redefined it in such a way that excluding gay people no longer makes any logical sense.
Apparently it is not only possible for 100 year old men to impregnate women, it is better for them to raise children then for a same sex couple to do so.
This is the first time I have seen this thread, and while the discussion has been interesting, all of you seem to be missing what Kim Davis is asking SCOTUS to consider.
She did, almost as an aside, ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. But the real case she is asking SCOTUS to decide on (which in my opinion is much more insidious), is whether a government official can be forced to take actions which the official feels violate their religious beliefs. This case is Masterpiece Cakeshop all over again, but now it is an official of the government that is claiming they should not be forced to do things that are in opposition to their religious beliefs.
If she wins (and I think she has a decent chance given Masterpiece and 303 Creative), it will mean that officials from low level police up to the President of the United States can refuse to take action that benefit “the gays” claiming a religious exemption.
It could be a very damaging case, even in the very likely event that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn Obergefell.
Oh, it’s broader than that. A police officer could (publicly, out loud) refuse to protect a member of a religious minority. A doctor could refuse to treat a member if the opposite sex. (It the same sex, i guess.)
I noticed that too (the thread went in a different direction) and I’m quite taken by the temerity of her adding the secondary request to her ridiculous primary request. I’m finding it kinda difficult to see where ‘They’re punishing me for not doing my job so you should overturn that and also overturn this tangentially related decision, K THX BYE!’ gives you standing to even suggest your case should lead to the overturning of Obergefell.
A government official has a duty to follow the law. If they don’t, the law and society can’t work. If they can’t perform their duties because of their beliefs, they should step down and let someone in who can do those duties. Being a government official isn’t the same as being a cake shop owner; you are a public servant and the public needs your services.
Of course, that common sense might not work for a SCOTUS drunk with power and corruption who have realized they can do whatever the fuck they want with literally no consequences, and who curry favor with people who lavish them with gifts.