Ohio’s Jim Obergefell, namesake of landmark gay marriage case, concerned SCOTUS could turn to LGBTQ rights after abortion decision

  • 📰 clevelanddotcom
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 47 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 22%
  • Publisher: 63%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

Jim Obergefell of Sandusky, who was a plaintiff in the 2015 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case legalizing same-sex marriage, is concerned about the future of gay rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- repeatedly referenced the Obergefell v. Hodges caseWhile Alito made it clear that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should revisit gay marriage and other cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment, on which Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago.

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. Griswold v. Connecticut concluded that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Lawrence v. Texas made same-sex sexual activity legal nationwide.

“I’d don’t think any of us are surprised that he said that,” Obergefell said in an interview on Friday.“I’ve been worried about LGBGQ+ rights even after marriage equality was affirmed,” he said. “We haven’t enjoyed marriage equality because of people like Kim Davis and bakers and photographers. We have the right to get married, but we haven’t enjoyed marriage equality.”

is a former county clerk who refused to sign marriage certificates for gay couples. Some wedding cake bakeries and wedding photographers have also denied services to gay couples.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

There is almost no difference between Thomas and his inquisitors and ISIS

Yes it should all be left to the states, anything not explicitly in the constitution is up to the states or the people.

Vote Democrat to protect womens rights. And civil rights. And voters rights. And workers rights. And natures rights. And school childrens rights

Let’s see if Thomas revisits Loving v Virginia!

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 301. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines