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.

MERRY CHRISTMAS - EXCEPT FOR THE GAYS?

Watch: Ben Shapiro Demands LGBTQ People Leave Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and His ‘Fragile Flying Back’ Alone

Published

on

Right wing extremist Ben Shapiro is demanding LGBTQ people leave Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer alone. Shapiro, who runs the far right website The Daily Wire, says the popular children’s Christmas character has enough problems and doesn’t need any more.

“Can’t you just leave Rudolph alone?” Shapiro asked on his radio show. “Like, he’s got enough problems without you putting your own issues with sexual orientation on his fragile flying back.”

Shapiro, who is virulently anti-LGBTQ, was reading from Wednesday’s New York Times opinion piece, “‘Rudolph,’ the Queerest Holiday Special.”

“As for ‘Rudolph,’ the whole movie feels as L.G.B.T.Q. friendly to me as any episode of ‘Queer Eye’ or ‘Steven Universe’ or ‘The L Word.'”

“Except for the fact that,” Shapiro notes, “You know, Rudolph doesn’t have sex with any of the other male reindeer.”

Shapiro, like many other conservatives, boils being gay down to having sex.

“I’m particularly tired of the hijacking of children’s literature and children’s specials to promote political viewpoints on sexual matters,” Shapiro, who apparently is unfamiliar with LGBTQ people and culture, says. “Like, it’s a piece of children’s literature, cut it out.”

Related: Ben Shapiro Slammed as ‘Very Outspoken Bigot’ for Calling World Cup Champ Megan Rapinoe an ‘Outspoken Lesbian’

“The left likes to play this game a lot when it comes to TV,” Shapiro says, wrongly, accusing some LGBTQ people of “hijacking” SpongeBob SquarePants.

(It’s important to note that Shapiro is having this conversation with himself on his radio show while the U.S. House of Representatives is engaged in a debate over impeaching the President.)

He then went on to accuse “some members of ther LGBT community” in the early ’90s of “sugggesting that some of the Teletubbies were gay.”

“Jerry Falwell made a comment about, ‘Well, the Teletubbies aren’t gay,'” Shapiro insisted, falsely. “It’s silly to try and hijack children’s characters and the left was like, ‘A ha, trolled you, trolled you,” Shapiro said.

Except that’s not what happened, not at all.

Jerry Falwell is the far right religious extremist who is best remembered for these comments about the 9/11 terror attacks:

“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.'”

And it was Jerry Falwell, not LGBTQ people, who said one of the Teletubbies was gay.

“Tinky Winky, one of four characters on the children’s TV show ‘Teletubbies,’ is gay and therefore a moral menace to American youth, the former Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell warns,” The New York Times reported in May of 1999. “Mr. Falwell said the creators of the program intended for Tinky Winky to be a gay role model.”

”He is purple — the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle — the gay-pride symbol,” he wrote. He also noted that Tinky Winky carries a purse-like bag.

Seems Shapiro just can’t seem to get anything straight.

And as for “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer,” yes, that New York Times opinion piece is correct.

Watch:

 

Image via Wikipedia

Continue Reading

COMMENTARY

Trump White House Already Scripting How Impeachment Trial Will Play Out? WH Counsel Just Walked Into McConnell’s Office

Published

on

Just how much control will the Trump White House have over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump?

Consider this.

The White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, just walked into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. Chances are good it wasn’t for a friendly game of checkers.

And Cipollone was accompanied by Eric Ueland, a former member of the Trump transition team who Trump tried to hand a top State Dept. job to but was forced to pull his nomination. A recent promotion has elevated him to now serving as the White House Director of Legislative Affairs, after spending years working for then-Senator Jeff Sessions.

One thing is clear: the Senate should not be working with the White House to pre-determine how the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be conducted or will play out.

Remember, it was just six says ago that Cipollone sent this angry letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, effectively saying Trump and the White House would not participate in the House’s impeachment hearings.

Cipollone called the impeachment inquiry “baseless.” He insisted it was both a waste of time and should be done “fast” so Trump could win in the Senate.

Experts say Cipollone’s December 6 letter in conjunction with his repeated refusal to hand over any documents or comply with congressional subpoenas may have forced the House to add the obstruction charge to the Articles of Impeachment.

Which apparently is where we are today.

 

Continue Reading

DUDE

Matt Gaetz Probably Isn’t the Best to Go After Someone’s Drug Use: Internet Cautions Republican Congressman

Published

on

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) probably isn’t the best person to make an argument against driving under the influence given his own arrests. Even Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) cautioned against “the pot calling the kettle black,” during the Thursday House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Gaetz was arrested for a DUI in 2008 on suspicion of a DUI after he refused a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer test. Just two years later he was elected to the Florida state legislature and by 2016 he was in Congress.

According to the arrest report, Gaetz was driving home from a nightclub when he was pulled over for driving 48 in a 35 mile-per-hour zone, the Tampa Bay Times reported. He was driving a BMW that belonged to his father, state Sen. Don Gaetz. The case was subsequently dropped.

“I’m of the view that that is part of who I am,” said the Fort Walton Beach Republican, who in 2016 will seek the seat now held by his father, Senate President Don Gaetz. “I made bad decisions that resulted in an arrest, and that is sort of something that we all live with.”

Related: Top MAGA Congressman Mocked for ‘Threatening to Retroactively Impeach Obama’

It was something the internet cautioned should probably be addressed by anyone other than Gaetz if they’re going to somehow go after the former vice president’s son for drug use.

You can see Rep. Johnsons’ comments here.

You can read the tweets below:

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.