- Author
- 09/08/2022
- 1,184 Words
- 1,607 Views
- 48 Comments
Note: While authors are asked to place warnings on their stories for some moderated content, everyone has different thresholds, and it is your responsibility as a reader to avoid stories or stop reading if something bothers you.
Happy Anniversary, Honey - 1. Chapter 1: Happy Anniversary, Honey!
“Happy Anniversary, Honey,” my husband said as he walked through the door when arriving home after work.
“What the hell are you talking about? Today is June 26th and our anniversary isn’t until September 23rd,” I responded.
“I didn’t say it was our anniversary, but it’s the seventh anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. It’s the case that made same-sex marriage legal and the decision was handed down on June 26, 2015. It also happened during Gay Pride month, so what could be more appropriate for us to celebrate than that?”
“Ok, I guess we should celebrate it, since the ruling made it possible for us to get married.”
“And it may not survive long enough to see its eighth anniversary.”
“What are you talking about? It’s the law of the land.”
“So was Roe v. Wade, and you’ve seen what the Supreme Court just did to that decision.”
“But that doesn’t mean the same thing will happen to same-sex marriage. Public support for it has grown since that Supreme Court decision, and the last I saw 70% of all Americans say they now support same-sex marriage”
“That may be true, but it won’t help if Clarence Thomas and the other conservative justices on the Supreme Court have anything to say about it. When making comments after Roe v. Wade was struck down, Justice Thomas suggested that the Court should re-examine the right to contraception access, same-sex relationships, and same sex-marriage as well. There’s not only a chance that same-sex marriage will be illegal, but same-sex relationships in general may be illegal as well.”
“Oh, they’re not going to do anything that extreme, are they?”
“There’s a good chance they might. Some states are already working on drafting laws that will do both of those things, and if the right case comes along and the Supreme Court gets a chance to rule on it, then they may uphold those radical laws.”
“Are you serious?”
“Yes, it appears as if the conservative justices are chomping at the bit to rule on those issues and they’re hoping a case will come before the court that allows them to reach such a decision. And I’m certain evangelical Christians and extremist conservatives will do whatever it takes to come up with a case or cases that might allow the justices to rule on those specific issues.”
“If they did that, then what would it mean for our marriage?”
“One of two things could happen. The same-sex couples who have already been married may be allowed to remain married under a “grandfather clause”, but more likely our marriage will be annulled,”
“That would suck, because what would we do then?”
“It appears our options would be limited. In fact, our best option would probably be to move to a country where same-sex marriages are still legal. In that case, I believe our best alternative would be to relocate to Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom, at least if we don’t wish to learn another language.”
“I’m certain we could manage in any of those countries, if it comes to that.”
“Yes, I’m sure we could move and find decent jobs, since we both have good educational backgrounds and work experience, but we wouldn’t have to do anything like that if the originalists on the Supreme Court weren’t such hypocrites.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“It’s because they are very selective on how they apply their claim of original intent when interpreting the Constitution. In many of the rulings they’ve made, they claim that we need to go back to what the Founding Fathers meant when they first wrote the Constitution back in the 18th century. Originalism doesn’t allow for the Constitution to evolve and grow to include issues that didn’t exist in the 18th century, such as technological advances that confront us in the 21st century.”
“Man, that could take us backwards on all kinds of issues.”
“In fact, it might have a dramatic effect on the Second Amendment, because if they go back to original intent then people would only be able to have muzzle loaders, not shotguns or rifles.”
“That would really create an uproar.”
“Yes it would. And maybe Justice Thomas should use his originalist viewpoint and reinstate the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. It declared that persons of African descent cannot be or were never intended to be citizens under the U.S. Constitution. That’s no longer an issue, though, because everything was codified into law with the passage of the various Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. If it was possible to go back to the original intent of the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision was reinstated, then Justice Thomas wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship. And if he wasn’t a citizen, then he wouldn’t be eligible to serve on the Supreme Court.”
“Yeah, that would fix him.”
“But with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, the discussion is moot.”
“So if Congress passes a law then the Supreme Court can’t override it?”
“The Supreme Court can rule if Congress had the authority to make such a law in the first place, meaning it was one of the powers they were given by the Constitution. The Court may also rule if individuals, municipalities, or states are incorrectly interpreting or applying the law, but they can’t override an act of Congress. That’s why Congress needs to codify same-sex marriage and abortion if they are to remain in effect, and not merely rely on a Supreme Court decision. ”
“Yeah, that would work.”
“Maybe the Supreme Court originalists should also revisit the 1967 ruling in the Loving v. Virginia case. In that case it was decided that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that Amendment wasn’t passed until July 1868. Under the originalists viewpoint interracial marriage should never have been allowed, and Justice Thomas wouldn’t have been able to marry his Caucasian wife, Virginia Lamp “Ginni” Thomas in 1987. You don’t hear him saying anything about revisiting that decision.”
“Then the Fourteenth Amendment made interracial marriage legal?”
“Not specifically. Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges were both originally upheld under those clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. So, if it doesn’t protect those rulings, then it shouldn’t protect Loving v. Virginia either, because interracial marriage isn’t specifically mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“I see, so it sounds as if his originalist views of the Constitution are only valid when it serves a purpose that they agree with.”
“I would concur with that statement, and I could go into many more examples where that happens, but I think you get the point. It also gives us even more reason why we should celebrate the anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling this year, because we may never get another chance to celebrate it.”
“Unfortunately, I concur with you on this point as well, so Happy Anniversary, Honey.”
“And Happy Anniversary to you too, Babe.”
The End.
-
17
-
13
-
2
-
2
Note: While authors are asked to place warnings on their stories for some moderated content, everyone has different thresholds, and it is your responsibility as a reader to avoid stories or stop reading if something bothers you.
Recommended Comments
Chapter Comments
-
Newsletter
Sign UpSign Up and get an occasional Newsletter. Fill out your profile with favorite genres and say yes to genre news to get the monthly update for your favorite genres.