Wednesday, October 07, 2020

An Open Letter To Clarence Thomas

Dear Clarence,

I saw the good news from SCOTUS … that the Court decided the lawsuit against anti-marriage equality Kentucky Kounty Klerk, Kim Davis, who was jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, to continue. Davis had argued that a legal doctrine called qualified immunity protected her from being sued for damages by couples David Ermold and David Moore as well as James Yates and Will Smith, but SCOTUS said ‘No, ma’am.’

Good news, no?

Maybe not, because then you wrote, for yourself and Justice Alito, that while agreeing with the decision not to hear the case, it was a "stark reminder of the consequences" of the court's 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage case. You wrote:

“Those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul [of that SCOTUS ruling] and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws.”

And then you said:

"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. … Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy."

I have two words for you, Clarence … fuck off. Wait, I have two more … fucking hypocrite.

You see, Clarence, you, a Black man, married Virginia, a white woman, in 1987 … a mere twenty years after the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. At that time peopled argued that interracial marriage was against “God’s law” and should therefore remain illegal.

So, you see, Clarence, but for a 1967 SCOTUS ruling, you could not have married your wife because people believed God wanted the races to be separate. And now, you want to make same-sex marriage illegal because people believe that God wants marriage to be only between one man and one woman.

And don’t get me started on which religions rules we’ll follow, Clarence, though it’s clear you only listen to the bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ faiths, while ignoring those religions that have come to accept and embrace same-sex marriage, as well as those who are non-religious and think faith should have no place in our laws. And that leads us to that whole idea that this country was founded on a Separation of Church and State, which clearly means that religion has no place in making law in this country.

So, Clarence, kindly fuck off, Clarence. What might you say when a group of religious bigots decide they want to roll back the legality of interracial marriage, and who knows, that may well happen when you let faith dictate law, I hope you won’t mind giving up your wife.

I, however, will not give up my husband, nor will I give up the right for members of my community to marry the person they love.

So, again, Clarence, kindly fuck all the way off.


11 comments:

  1. Totally agree with your letter.
    Was kindof surprised that it
    was still out there. Anyway
    both of you take care, stay
    safe and xoxo :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. this muthafucka is breathing? I thought he was a prop on SCOTUS. FUCK ALL THE WAY OFF, FUCKHEAD!

    ReplyDelete
  3. rAmen!
    The xtianists are coming for our rights, kids.
    That's why they want the Handmaiden's Tale c*nt in SCOTUS.

    XOXO

    ReplyDelete
  4. The handmaid on SCOTUS will give her judgement as decided by her husband surely? After all she is supposed to get her orders from her walking skeleton of a husband according to their rules and regulations, although she has of course been written out of the People of Faith or Prayer (or whatever her crazy group call themselves) in case it looks bad for a Supreme to be taking orders from anyone other than President Insane. So marriage equality will go down the shoot if they let this "illegal" (according to Uterus Mitch's old rules - they change every month as to what is most convenient to keep him in his seat).

    ReplyDelete
  5. He , of all people, should be representing the minorities and the LGBTQ with fair and just decisions! I guess he is an example of someone that hasn't learned from history.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nicely put, dear. Clarence is one big ole mess of crap. I still believe Anita Hill and always will. But it just goes to show how evil Republicans are. Remember separation of church and state, Clarence? Well, one day his decaying evil heart will explode and hopefully Kamala will be in power to appoint someone with some human decency.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, so incredibly well said.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That white supremacist oreo is never going to listen, but way to go!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @TDM
    I’m just stunned that he doesn’t see the hypocrisy. That alone makes me worry about the veracity of this court without RBG.

    @AM
    Funny how silent he is for years until RBG is gone and then he found his balls and came up with this hypocritical shiz. Off is the direction in which Clarence Thomas should fuck.

    @Six
    I mean, Thomas is a moron, but, yeah, stack the court with faux-Christians who believe theirs is the only true faith and this is what we get.
    @Helen
    She is quite the enigma, wrapped up in warped faith.

    @MM
    Exactly! I’m stunned by his idiocy. If this happens, and that is a big IF< I may take a case to SCOTUS that interracial marriage bugs my faith and I want them ended. See how that asshat likes it.

    @uptoinking
    Thank you, and I believe Anita, too. And your last line? YES!!!

    @Mitchell
    My pleasure.

    @Michael
    Thank you. He really pissed me off with this nonsense.

    @Dave
    Then let Joe expand the Court so Clarence Thomas returns to being an ignorant footnote.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isn't there a principle in judicial ethics if a judge has expressed a prior opinion on an issue that may come before the Court, they need to recuse themself if that case comes before the Court? I don't recall that motion war ever going on with the Supremes.

    ReplyDelete

Say anything, but keep it civil .......