Acosta guest warns Justice Thomas: ‘The right to interracial marriage is only 6 yrs older’ than Roe

Jim Obergefell lashes out at Justice Thomas: ‘The right to interracial marriage is only 6 years older’ than Roe vs. Wade

(Video Credit: CNN)

The face of gay marriage, Jim Obergefell, arrogantly informed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that the right to interracial marriage was passed just six years before Roe v. Wade after the landmark abortion case was overturned.

Obergefell was the lead plaintiff in the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

The two issues he was attempting to link have absolutely nothing to do with one another but Obergefell stretched to make the connection, evidently accusing Thomas of selective jurisprudence.

Obergefell spoke with a salivating Jim Acosta on the seven-year anniversary of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell vs. Hodges. Somehow, that made him expert enough to comment on the de-federalization of abortion.

At issue is a comment that Thomas made after Roe v. Wade was overturned. He intimated that issues such as gay marriage and contraception should also be revisited because they were ruled upon citing precedence.

It should be noted that although the media keeps referring to constitutional rights, neither gay marriage nor abortion is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The overturning of Roe v. Wade did not outlaw abortion. It handed the right to rule on the issue back to the individual states.

The ruling by the Supreme Court on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization took a look at provisions in the Constitution and whether they conferred an “implicit constitutional right” to an abortion. The court found that “[t]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

Justice Thomas stated in a separate concurring opinion that SCOTUS “should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents,” and specifically listed Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 case granting the right of married persons to obtain contraceptives), Lawrence v. Texas (the 2003 case that ruled on the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell.

The originalist justice wrote that the cases represented “demonstrably erroneous decisions.” He also noted that the court had a “duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Thomas’ sentiments are causing “growing alarm in the LGBTQ community,” Acosta asserted on “CNN Newsroom” Sunday.

“It’s been a terrible several days for our nation,” Obergefell told Acosta. “Half of our country lost the right to control their own body, and that should terrify everyone in this nation who believes in our ability to make decisions for ourselves.”

Thomas “put a target on the back” of other rights like contraception and marriage, and “that should terrify everyone in this nation,” he proclaimed.

Dobbs was a “terrible decision,” he further asserted. “We should be moving forward not backwards. And this court is taking us backwards, this extreme court is taking us backwards.”

Then Obergefeel brought up the 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, where laws banning interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. Thomas’ wife, Ginni, is white and he is black. Again, alluding to a case that has no relevance to Roe v. Wade.

“To me, it’s a clear indication that if it’s a case that impacts him directly, it’s safe,” Obergefell postured, “but if it’s a case that protects other people, other people who are unlike him, then we’re not very safe.”

“The right to interracial marriage is only six years older than a woman’s right to abortion,” he charged. “Our nation has a much longer history of denying interracial marriage. Do we want to go back to the late 18th century, the originalist who’s saying we can only interpret the constitution as of the time it was written? When that constitution was written, ‘We, the People,’ did not include blacks, indigenous people, it did not include women, it did not include queer people. That is not a more perfect union.”

Obergefell also vented to MSNBC’s Symone Sanders on Sunday.

“My immediate reaction was anger and also disgust that the highest court in our land, the court that is supposed to protect equal justice under law, the court that is supposed to interpret the Constitution to support every person in this country, that a justice on that court would put in writing a clarion call to opponents of marriage equality and LGBTQ+ equality, not to mention the right to contraception in that concurring decision?” he railed.

“That is nothing more than a call for people who are opposed to those, opposed to us,” Obergefell asserted.

“It is appalling that a Supreme Court justice would do that. It is appalling that a Supreme Court would take away a right that people in America, that women in America, have enjoyed and come to rely on for almost 50 years,” the Democratic candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives added.

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles