back
13 comments
The fears are pretty plainly invented for the purpose of whipping up political fury. It's simple posturing for the purpose of whipping up enthusiasm for upcoming midterms.

Thomas, writing in the Dobbs decision, explicitly took Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell off the table.

> Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

> Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.” Supra, at 32. It is hard to see how we could be clearer. Moreover, even putting aside that these cases are distinguishable, there is a further point that the dissent ignores: Each precedent is subject to its own stare decisis analysis, and the factors that our doctrine instructs us to consider like reliance and workability are different for these cases than for our abortion jurisprudence.

From the next paragraph:

> For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Great! They should have done the same with abortion when they had a majority in all branches.
But then they wouldn't be able to use it as a cheap political gimmick to whip up fury and thus votes. Politicians don't do things for our benefit, everything is to prolong their hold on power.
Sensible policymaking for same-gender marriage!
It won't pass Senate though?
It might.

But here's the thing: What Congress can pass, Congress can un-pass in 2024. That is, all these "Oh, the SC decided something we don't like, let's pass a bill to fix it" responses seem to me to be a bit flimsy.

Passing a bill is exactly what the Supreme Court is asking them to do. It may not be perfect, but the Democrats should take what they can get. Having a law on the books will make any SC ruling against gay marriage harder to justify. Also, there might be just enough Republican support for this to squeak by just to prove overturning Roe wasn't some slippery slope to overturning gay marriage, contraception, and inter-racial marriage.
I think Clarence specifically omitted inter-racial marriage from his list of future targets for obvious reasons: his wife Ginni is white.

"It's okay for me, but not for thee"

Is marriage outlined in constitution? State issue then.

Unless it falls under interstate commerce clause like everything is…

Yeah, it's in the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

At the very least other states must acknowledge marriages (public act and/or record) from other states, even if that state wouldn't permit it.

if a "simple" law is already at "might not pass" anything stronger is not really realistic, is it? (i.e. constitutional amendment)
In case there is a paywall in the future: https://web.archive.org/web/20220719221109/https://www.nytim...