Posted by Pat Cunningham on Mar 28, 2013 in Uncategorized | 4 comments
As a stubborn and simple-minded Originalist, the real question is whether Clarence believes John Hancock approved of mixed-race marriage.
Still, Thomas has said, “To define each of us by our race is nothing short of a denial of our humanity.” DOMA does exactly that – define each of us by sexual orientation – but I bet Thomas will never see or admit the equivalence.
Mattel has a Clarence Thomas doll. You turn it over and it remains quiet for 22 years. He’s a disgrace to Thurgood Marshall and should resign.
Not once has Mr.Thomas stood for the average Joe, read his briefs he is all about the money,never doe’s he speak against minority issues especially when it’s attached to money
Hmm love the attacks to divert from the inconvient truth.
His mixed race marriage is between a man and woman.
The fight to allow mixed race marriage as a common right still falls under the basic defintion of marriage that has existed for thousands of years and almost every country/nation/groups.
The fight for this is no different than the breaking of other (but not necessarily legally enforced) barriers such as mixed religions, mixed nationalities, or even mixed classes.
All of this still fell under the banner of one man and one woman.
Sorry if the attempt to compare apples to bowling balls failed.
Again I ask if you want the same “benifits” of opposite sex marriages have then why not fight for domestic partners legislation?
As shown in IL it passed with very little hassle, does not distinguish between same or opposite sex (isnt that the universal equality you claim to want), and gets you what you claim to want?
Or is your true goal to change a thousand year definition to meet your personal beliefs?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.
Rockford Register Star | rrstar.com