The Supreme Court’s work is far from done, according to Texas Republicans.
Days before the Court rocked liberals by ruling that the Constitution permits individuals to carry a gun to protect themselves and then followed that up by overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion the Texas Republican Party’s platform called for nullifying the 2015 decision that allowed same-sex marriage.
“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, the document adopted by Texas Republicans at last weekend’s convention said.
The document went further.
“Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice,” it said. “We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification”
Trending:
On the subject of gender identity, the Texas GOP was very clear.
“We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity. For the purpose of attempting to affirm a person age 21 or under if their perception is inconsistent with their biological sex, no medical practitioner or provider may engage in the following practices: Intervene in any way to prevent natural progression of puberty. Administer or provide opposite sex hormones. Perform any surgery on healthy body parts of the underage person.”
Texas Republicans also said that those who don’t like the sex they were born with can use their own cash to pay for whatever changes they want to make.
“We oppose the use of taxpayer funds for any type of medical gender dysphoria treatments or sex change operations and/or treatments. This includes but is not limited to military personnel as well as inmates in federal, state, or local prisons or jails. Inmates must be housed according to their biological sex. No Federal, state, insurance, or probate monies may be allocated for the use of such treatment.
Should the Supreme Court revisit all of its landmark liberal rulings?
During an appearance at the convention, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas slammed Disney’s “Lightyear” movie for having a same-sex couple kiss.
“Like, just leave the kids alone,” Cruz said, according to The Hill. “Consenting adults, you can do what you want to do, but this culture assault is driven by radical leftists who want to tear down America.”
The issue of overturning the 2015 ruling gained new traction Friday when Justice Clarence Thomas brought up the subject in a concurring opinion to Friday’s decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, according to Newsweek.
Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Griswold v. Connecticut was a 1965 court ruling that claimed that married couples have a right to buy and use contraception without government getting in the way. The 2003 ruling of Lawrence v. Texas ruled that penalties for sodomy or private sex acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional.
“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.
“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,” he wrote.
Thomas, who dissented in the Lawrence and Obergefell rulings, has spoken out on the same-sex marriage ruling before.
“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law,” Thomas wrote in a 2020 opinion cited by Newsweek. “But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”
He said that “the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’”
