With the reversal of Roe V Wade, now is not the time to relax but to start really pushing.

Justice Thomas thinks it's time to revisit past bad decisions such as contraception for married people, sodomy and same sex marriage.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justice-thomas-revisit-scotus-rulings-on-sodomy-contraception-and-same-sex-marriage/

With the reversal of Roe V Wade, now is not the time to relax but to start really pushing.

Justice Thomas thinks it's time to revisit past bad decisions such as contraception for married people, sodomy and same sex marriage.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justice-thomas-revisit-scotus-rulings-on-sodomy-contraception-and-same-sex-marriage/

It can't happen unless a case is decided in a lower court and the SC grants certiorari.  In the case of all three, I just don't see that happening.

I don't know why Justice Thomas would have raised this possibility.  There is such a thing as overplaying your hand.  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see all three of those things outlawed, but the first one probably can never happen, ditto for the second one, and SSM, it's a fairly recent "right", so it is somewhat more possible, but as I said, there would have to be a case that the SC would be willing to hear.  

And I don't think he'd want to see the Loving case reconsidered, in that he is married to a white woman.

It can't happen unless a case is decided in a lower court and the SC grants certiorari.  In the case of all three, I just don't see that happening.

I don't know why Justice Thomas would have raised this possibility. 

I recall from my law school days they referred to these types of comments in legal decisions as “dicta” (ie., comments not immediately applicable to the case or issue at hand).

Although the SCOTUS can’t just simply rule on matters not before it, they can broadcast their general opinion on such matters, which can in turn inspire (deliberately) lower courts contending such issues to appeal them up the chain, at which time they can become reviewable.

I wonder if all 6 Catholic judges would vote against SSM, contraception, and sodomy.  

They struck down Roe, which would seem to have been the most entrenched of all four issues, so anything is possible.

Were they to do so, these four measures would be big steps toward realigning our country with Christ.

Of course the biggest issue is the so-called “separation of church and state.”  That needs to fall, and the state needs to be aligned with the Catholic Church.

At least no child has ever been conceived and then aborted due to an act of sodomy.

Well, sodomy per se is a bit different than SSM.  Sodomy is a sinful act, but SSM entails a recognition by society that sodomite "unions" are on a par with true marriage.  I think with sodomy, one could argue the St. Thomas principle (that he applied to, say, prostitution) that it would be onerous for a society to police and enforce it and that people will do it anyway ... vs. SSM which absolutely must be struck from the books.

Well, sodomy per se is a bit different than SSM.  Sodomy is a sinful act, but SSM entails a recognition by society that sodomite "unions" are on a par with true marriage.  I think with sodomy, one could argue the St. Thomas principle (that he applied to, say, prostitution) that it would be onerous for a society to police and enforce it and that people will do it anyway ... vs. SSM which absolutely must be struck from the books.

Yes, I think SSM is likely the best bet.  The decision would look similar to the recent one whereby the decisions are left to the states.

Yes, I think SSM is likely the best bet.  The decision would look similar to the recent one whereby the decisions are left to the states.

If there were ever such an event, it would likely play out the same way as Dobbs: a jurisdiction enacts a ban, someone argues it as unconstitutional (with Obergefell, it was because Ohio refused to recognize Jim Obergefell as a surviving "spouse" of a terminally ill man) and somehow somewhere, it makes it to the Supreme Court and it is ruled that there is no constitutional right, immediately left back to the states.

Evan if some states kept it legal, there would be enough states with it illegal that the pressure would be off so we could openly promote God's laws without being charged with a hate crime.
But most importantly, we would be more free to convince others.

We have to look at the bright side and keep pushing to regain more ground and not lose any we've gained.