Connect with us

Clarence Thomas: Slavery Didn’t Take Away Dignity So How Can Same-Sex Marriage Bestow It?

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did an excellent job of revealing he has absolutely no understanding of the human condition. 

Clarence Thomas is one of the most conservative and one of the most controversial justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia gets a lot of attention, in part because his dissents of late have been hyperbolic and bombastic, but Justice Thomas rarely gets much attention. 

He deserves a lot more, and not in a good way.

The 67-year old Georgia-born jurist who replaced – of all people, Thurgood Marshall – on the bench, offered a stunning statement in his dissent of the same-sex marriage case.

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the ‘dignity’ of same-sex couples,” Justice Thomas writes. “The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no ‘dignity’ Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.”

“Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.”

OK, you’re probably thinking, this is nuts, and insensitive, but wait, there’s more.

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

Let’s do that again.

“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”

Is he serious?

Being property, being owned by another person, with absolutely no rights, subjected to violence and rape and starvation and whipping and all sorts of other indignities does not cause one to lose their dignity nor their humanity?

Speaking personally, I have never been a slave, nor confined in an internment camp, but I can imagine how horrific that was.

How is it possible that Justice Thomas cannot?

And, as a gay man who married two years ago, almost to this day, I can without qualification state that my personal dignity was greatly affected – positively – upon becoming a legally married man. 

The exact moment my husband and I were pronounced married I was a changed person. My world changed, and yes, it had to do with legal acceptance and validation, and dignity.

Something Justice Thomas, sadly, must not know anything about.

Justice Thomas’ dissent is so vile and offensive, he’s actually right now the number two trending topic, right under #LoveWins:

Screen_Shot_2015-06-26_at_2.29.11_PM.jpg 

More responses via Twitter:

 

Image by Stetson University via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

'REMARKABLY THIN'

‘Flaccid Little Cry Baby’: Legal Experts Weigh in on Trump’s ‘Not Very Strong’ Lawsuit to Block Jan. 6 Committee

Published

on

Donald Trump has just filed a lawsuit to block the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack from being granted access to a mountain of documents from his four years as president held by the National Archives.

Legal experts are weighing in on this latest attempt by the former president to obstruct a lawful investigation.

NBC News reports Trump’s lawsuit “says the committee’s subpoena is invalid because it has no power of investigation,” and it “says the material should be protected by executive privilege,” which is also false, according to countless legal experts who have been commenting on that claim for weeks.

Trump is “requesting that the court invalidate the committee’s requests and enjoin the archivist from turning over the records in question. At a bare minimum, the court should enjoin the archivist from producing any potentially privileged records until President Trump is able to conduct a full privilege review of all of the requested materials.”

Top national security lawyer Bradley Moss appears to be enjoying mocking the lawsuit:

CNN’s Keith Boykin, a former Clinton White House aide who has a law degree from Harvard Law weighed in on the news by blasting Trump, saying: “This guy has spent his entire career bluffing his way through life, evading responsibility, dodging accountability, and filing frivolous lawsuits to distract and delay. Justice means nothing in America if Trump is not held accountable for his crimes.”

Attorney and upcoming author Luppe B. Luppen:

Former Obama White House attorney, now a Law Professor at Cardozo Law and Supreme Court contributor for ABC News calls the suit “remarkably thin.”

.

Continue Reading

'DEMASCULATE'

Watch: Madison Cawthorn Urges Mothers of Young Boys to ‘Raise Them to Be a Monster’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is urging parents to turn their young children into monsters.

The North Carolina Republican Congressman lamented that American “culture is trying to completely demasculate all the young men,” presumably meaning “emasculate.”

“You can look at testosterone levels in young men today, and they are lower than throughout all of history,” he added.

“But my friends they’re trying to demasculate the young men in this country ’cause they don’t want people who are going to stand up.”

“If you are raising a young man, raise them to be a monster,” he urged mothers, to applause.

The clip was posted by Right Wing Watch:

 

Continue Reading

'HIRED ACTOR'

Psaki Again Destroys Doocy So Bad Some Are Asking if He Is a ‘Deep State’ Actor or a ‘Plant’ to Make Her Look Good

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s near-daily ritual of educating Peter Doocy took such a dramatic step up on Monday some are asking if perhaps the Fox News correspondent is a “plant” or a “deep state hired actor” designed to make her look good.

When today’s exchange was all done Psaki had reminded Doocy that Trump “used his office to incite an insurrection,” and “put political pressure on senior DOJ officials to propagate lies about the election to the point where they threaten to resign en masse.”

Doocy Monday afternoon had jumped on President Joe Biden’s response to a reporter’s question Friday. When asked if the January 6 Committee’s subpoenas against those who refuse to comply should be enforced, the President said they should be.

Some, including Doocy, are accusing Biden of reneging on a promise to not weigh in on the Justice Dept.’s decisions whether or not to prosecute cases – something Donald Trump did on a regular basis. But enforcing a subpoena is not deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. The DOJ, or, in this case, U.S, Attorneys, have a legal mandate to enforce congressional subpoenas.

Here’s part of the exchange:

And here’s how people are responding:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.