Via the Washington Post:
Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the fundamental right to an abortion, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) appeared to express support for Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion that the high court could review other precedents that may be deemed “demonstrably erroneous,” including those affecting the LGBTQ community.
One of the cases mentioned by Thomas was Lawrence v. Texas, which prevents states from banning intimate same-sex relationships. The landmark 2003 ruling struck down a 1973 Texas law that criminalized the act of sodomy. But as Roe v. Wade was overturned, Paxton said he would defend the state’s defunct sodomy law if the Supreme Court were to follow Thomas’s remarks and eventually revisits Lawrence.
“I mean, there’s all kinds of issues here, but certainly the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don’t think there’s any constitutional provision dealing with,” Paxton said in a Friday interview with NewsNation anchor Leland Vittert. “They were legislative issues, and this is one of those issues, and there may be more. So it would depend on the issue and dependent on what state law had said at the time.”
When asked whether the Texas legislature would pass a similar sodomy law and if Paxton would defend it and bring it to the Supreme Court, the Republican attorney general, who is running for reelection in November, suggested he would be comfortable supporting a law outlawing intimate same-sex relationships.
“Yeah, look, my job is to defend state law, and I’ll continue to do that,” Paxton said to Vittert. “That is my job under the Constitution, and I’m certainly willing and able to do that.”
What is it about right-wingers who supposedly believe in limited government and individual freedoms and their obsession with other people’s private lives and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Clarence Thomas wants to revisit all except one of the Supreme Court rulings over the last fifty years that asserted the right to use a condom, to marry your same-sex partner, and to enjoy the intimacy of the bedroom. (The one exception is Loving v. Virginia that overturned bans on interracial marriage probably because of his own marriage.) I’ve said it before: why are they more interested in overturning those rulings that have virtually no impact on those who are not directly involved with the situations while other rulings that have damaged our elections (Citizens United v. FEC) and threatened the safety of citizens (District of Columbia v. Heller) sail on by?
To put it simply, Ken Paxton and his ilk, and that includes Clarence Thomas, have a very unhealthy fixation on other people’s genitals and how they use them. Not only is that unhealthy for them, it’s dangerous for us and the Constitution.