Proposed: Dobbs will NOT overturn same sex marriage, contraception, et al

Yes, he said all of that. But he also said that these cases have different stare decisis considerations because they do not involve the consideration of human life. So while Roe can be overturned because of these bad decisions, and there definitely won’t be more substantive due process things springing out of the ground in the future, we won’t overrule these other cases. I mean, it’s part of the opinion.

I’m not following. So we should overrule those cases?

I don’t trust him on this at all:

Tomorrow, and only because SCOTUS doesn’t meet on Sunday.

The primary reason that people object to abortion is because they view it as a cheat to get out of the punishment for sinful sex. I will be generous and say that maybe a quarter of people who are against abortion primarily do so for the reason they claim - that it’s the termination of a life. The rest of them are being judgmental about old puritan values. Casual, non-procreative, non-marriage sex is sinful, especially when a woman does it. Getting pregnant is part of the punishment for that behavior. Abortion is a cheat to get out of that punishment, and therefore needs to be banned.

If the anti-abortion crowd were genuine that the prevention of terminating lives was their primary motivation, they’d be all for not creating unwanted life to be aborted. They’d be for sex education, contraception, and all the things we know actually reduce abortions. But they are not. The people who are most anti-abortion are also generally the people who are most anti-sex ed and anti-contraception. Because “protecting life” is not really their motivation, punishing sinful behavior (specifically, sinful sexual behavior by a woman) is.

Stopping abortion as a cheat for getting out of punishment for sinful sex was a huge political motivator for tens of millions of people; You know what else is a cheat for getting out of your punishment? Contraception. Now, this isn’t as clear cut as abortion, because “good” people may have justified reasons for contraception in their minds - say, married couples who already have several kids and don’t want more - so it won’t get quite the same level of support as a ban on abortion. But there are millions of Americans who want to ban contraception for the same reason they wanted to ban abortion, and therefore it is definitely under threat.

Relying on the good faith of republican judges or legislators is insane. Allowing courts to overturn protection of rights because the threats to those rights doesn’t seem immediate is a regression of political and human progress and playing with fire. We’ve been playing the “relax, republicans aren’t THAT bad, they won’t do THAT” game for quite a while now and we keep pretending to be shocked every time they reach an unbelievable new low.

Ahem. Never mind same-sex marriage, there are some who would be happy to enforce laws against gay sex.

When asked whether the Texas legislature would pass a similar sodomy law and if Paxton would defend it and bring it to the Supreme Court, the Republican attorney general, who is running for reelection in November, suggested he would be comfortable supporting a law outlawing intimate same-sex relationships.

The article is slightly mistaken in that the Texas legislature would not need to pass a new sodomy law. The law which bans “homosexual conduct” remains on the books in Texas and is only made unenforceable by Lawrence v. Texas. Should that ruling be overturned, there would already be a law for Paxton to enforce.

A couple of observations:

You’ve limited your reassurances to 2022, and I guess that you are pretty safe in doing so considering that it is almost November. Absent Armageddon, the current SCOTUS is going to be dispensing opinions on social issues for quite some time into the future. Many of us, especially females and the LGBTQ community have learned, sadly, that our position in society is much more tenuous going forward than it has been for the last several decades.

I’m a moderate Democrat, I won’t presume to specify exactly what ideals a “conservative Republican” espouses. However, I recall that traditionally the Republicans styled their positions as favoring lower taxes, less government spending, capitalist philosophy, and states’ rights. I don’t even recall the “extemist” Barry Goldwater as having a position on abortion, or gay and transgender rights The Republican party saw a way to gain more traction by courting the “moral majority,” i.e. Christian evangelical extremists,and now repressive social policies seem to have become one of the most defining characteristics of the Republican party platform. I guess I am asking you: Does being a “conservative Republican” require lip service to fundamentalist Christian ideas of what is morally correct, even though prominent party members (e.g., Herschel Walker, Donald Trump, Peter Thiel) excuse themselves from practicing what they require of others? Because it seems to me that this is exactly what has taken place.

Touche. I mean that in 2022 or 2030 or 2050, unless there is a sea change in society, there will not be prohibitions in the areas discussed.

That is an out of context quote. He said that as AG he would enforce any valid law in the state. That is what an AG should do. He didn’t make any comments on whether Lawrence should be overruled.

I am not a politician, but I believe “not at all.” I live in West Virginia, k? No Republican here has to agree to ban gay sex or contraception or interracial marriage to get elected. I think most people (98% plus?) would not want to enact their own moral preferences into law. I mean, I don’t think that all instances of casual sex are a good thing for people but I’m not for passing laws against it.

It goes back to the Dobbs opinion. This is a special case. It involves human and/or potential human life. That takes it out of the category of personal freedom, liberty, substantive due process and the like because unlike just wanting to peek into the neighbor’s bedroom, this instance may, in some people’s opinion, involve if the neighbor is killing a child in that bedroom. So the constitutional values are different.

I know that posters don’t trust Republicans, but that isn’t evidence that they will do all of these nasty things. I could say that Democrats will make us comply with Stalin-esque things, but that doesn’t make it so. I would be required on these boards to bring forth proof.

Some people’s opinions are wrong and not reality.

Let’s go back to your original post that started this subthread:

Is the Texas Republican Party “a handful of nutjobs”? Their official 2022 platform says:

  1. Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral covenant only between one biological man and one biological woman.

  2. State Authority over Marriage: We support withholding jurisdiction from the federal courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.

  3. Nullify Unconstitutional Ruling: We believe the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be nullified.

I mean from my viewpoint the Texas GOP is indeed a bagful of nutjobs; but from your position as a conservative Republican I assume you don’t agree.

(I would add that as far as contraception is concerned the Texas GOP doesn’t explicitly want to prohibit it. Although they do want to ban all sex education whatsoever in public schools. :man_facepalming:)

Hell, the Illinois GOP’s platform says:

While not universally achievable, the ideal environment for children is within a two-parent family based on the principle of marriage between one man and one woman. The Republican Party endorses a constitutional amendment protecting our Defense of Marriage Act and enshrining in constitutional law marriage as it is defined in our “DOMA.” Our laws should strongly support and celebrate the loving commitment a man and a woman make to each other in marriage. Our laws should strongly support and celebrate a loving, married couple bringing new life into the world and rearing their children in a secure and nurturing environment from conception to adulthood

So this isn’t some wacky red state thing. The GOP in this deep blue state says we need a Constitutional amendment to make marriage exclusively between a man and woman.

But we don’t need one to protect same-sex marriage! No way, that’s just silly. It’s 2022, after all! Settled law. Just trust us that it’s never going away…

This is simply politics. I assume that position was adopted in 2016. Do you want to upset old ladies who write checks by actively repealing it or keep it in there to keep the checks coming?

Nothing you have cited has refuted the idea that there is no “serious” effort to overrule Obergefell. Unlike abortion, gay marriage couldn’t be a deader issue. Nobody cares about it. It was a big thing 20 years ago and big in the lead up to Obergefell. Since then, silence.

Roe nor Casey accomplished this which is why the opinion specifically held Roe out to be different. Hell, even Brown was not controversial 50 years later. Roe represented a judicial usurpation of power that was unique enough to deserve overruling. That isn’t the case with the other things.

So it was declaring that we should trust the conservative judges when declaring that Roe was settled law.

I’ve looked up the Texas GOP platforms since 2016. (I feel dirty now.) It was indeed adopted in 2016; but in 2022 they actually amended that platform point. In the 2020 platform it said

We believe the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.

whereas in 2022 it said:

We believe the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be nullified.

It seems to me that they must have actively considered it and ratified it in 2022, since they changed the wording.

That is a very peculiar thing to say by someone that is involved in the law. There is still controversy.

Case Commentary

This decision ranks among the most dramatic issued by the Supreme Court, in part due to Warren’s insistence that the Fourteenth Amendment gave the Court the power to end segregation even without Congressional authority. Like the use of non-legal sources to justify his reasoning, Warren’s “activist” view of the Court’s role remains controversial to the current day. The illegality of segregation does not, however, and a series of later decisions were implemented to try to force states to comply with Brown. Unfortunately, the reality is that this decision’s vision of complete desegregation has not been achieved in many areas of the U.S., and the problems of enforcement that Jackson identified have proven difficult to solve.

Well, yes, of course it’s politics. That’s why we’re worried: Because it’s the actual politicians, the people who write the laws, who are telling us that this is the sort of law that they want to write if given the chance. If we don’t take it seriously when politicians literally put this in their party platform, then when, pray tell, should we take it seriously?

Do you have a unique definition of “settled law” that means it cannot ever be overruled ever? Especially along side a statement that the nominee would not pledge to confirm or overrule Roe?

Plessy was certainly “settled law.”

Sure. The old ladies keep writing checks. Where are the petitions the TX GOP has filed? Have they tried to enforce sodomy laws or TX marriage laws, even though they have super majorities everywhere? That fits with my definition of not “seriously” trying to enforce anything.

Yeah, it is an academic debate. Nobody wants segregated schools anymore. I mean “nobody” is pretty absolute, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that even AL or MS would reinstitute segregated schools today. It is a Dem talking point unconnected from reality.

Of course not . . . I mean exactly how would that further the control of women’s right to bodily autonomy?

The TX GOP has been given the chance. They are not challenging the laws. They want old ladies to keep writing checks. And even if they wanted to do so the same sex marriage debate is over. Majorities everywhere support it. My side lost. It is never coming back.

The contraception or interracial marriage debate is even more absurd. Do you seriously believe that there will be an issue in your state about obtaining birth control? I respectfully think not. It wasn’t even an issue is Griswold. It is a purely political point by Biden to shift control away from high crime and high inflation.

Nobody will stop anyone from having gay marriages or contraception, even IF Thomas’ opinion controls which it will never.

So it’s not the actual policians who are the nutbags, it’s just that the people funding the party who are the “small handful” who shouldn’t be taken seriously? But whose favor the party is concerned enough about that they take positions on this in order to court?

Your logic on this is nonsense at best.