Overturning Obergefell would allow de-recognition of same-sex marriages. Overturning Lawrence would open the door to the return of sodomy laws.
For a long time I thought some of these victories were pretty much safe, just because their outcomes are now broadly popular. But an antidemocratic political movement doesn't have to care about popularity in the same way that a party that has to win free and fair elections does.
Sodomy laws were almost entirely unenforced for quite a while before the Lawrence decision. But if we've learned one thing from the last five years, it's that norms, precedent, and tradition mean nothing to the modern Republican Party.
And if Roe falls, if Obergefell falls, then it's not just Lawrence we have to worry about, but Griswold, too.
Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, was the first in the Court's modern string of privacy cases, the bedrock upon which Roe and Obergefell and Lawrence were built.
In Griswold, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional invasion of marital privacy for the state to ban the use of contraception. (The ruling was extended to cover unmarried people in the Eisenstadt case in 1972.)
The animating spirit of Roe and Obergefell and Lawrence is the logic of Griswold. If any falls, all are in danger.
That doesn't mean that the Court is likely to openly repudiate Griswold any time soon, or that states are going to start banning condoms as test cases. But.
The further the Court goes down its current path, the more state and local legislators will be emboldened to pursue bans on Plan B, restrictions on access to birth control pills, new regulation of IUDs and implants, bans on open display or advertising of contraceptives.
And it's not just legislators, either. It's the cop who makes a sodomy arrest in a state where the laws weren't removed from the books after Lawrence. The zoning board that tries to ban pharmacies from selling condoms to minors.
And the Court wouldn't have to embrace these acts, either. They could just declare, loudly or silently, that such injustices are none of their business—questions for politicians, not justices, to resolve.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Angus Johnston

Angus Johnston Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @studentactivism

15 Sep
I know several people in their twenties and thirties who have decided not to have kids because the future looks so bleak. It breaks my heart.
Since some folks are misinterpreting, I want to be clear: The people I'm talking about aren't making an ethical decision to reduce their impact on the planet through population reduction. They're foregoing having kids because they're scared of what the world is turning into.
We could debate whether population restriction is going to solve the planet's problems (it mostly wouldn't, and would cause all sorts of other trouble, is my answer), but this isn't that.
Read 5 tweets
15 Sep
I'd say tonight's results indicate pretty powerfully that "No On One, Leave Two Blank" was good, simple, effective messaging strategy.
Like Silver, I was made nervous by "No One One, Leave Two Blank." Unlike Silver, (1) I understood the argument in its favor, and (2) nobody's paying me gazillions of dollars a year to be smart about politics and elections.
This is the crux of where Silver (I'd argue) whiffed it on the "Leave 2 Blank" issue—an overconfidence in his own gut instincts, dressed up as spurious statistical precision. (I know, you're shocked.)
Read 17 tweets
14 Sep
I had to read four different articles on the Dems' new voting rights bill to find one that clearly answered the question of whether it imposes a national Voter ID requirement. (It doesn't.) washingtonpost.com/politics/revis…
The Dems' old bill banned state-level Voter ID laws. The new bill dramatically restricts them. That's the difference. Either bill would limit Voter ID laws on the state level, neither would impose new Voter ID requirements.
So if you see people this morning asking why the Democrats are supporting Voter ID, the answer is that they aren't, but that sloppy reporting is leaving the impression that they are.
Read 7 tweets
13 Sep
Minnesota’s two senate seats are held by popular Democratic women in their early sixties.
Having investigated further this morning, I see that Franken's interview was conducted as promotion for a new comedy tour, and feel mildly regretful for assisting with his viral marketing.
And just to close the circle, there really isn't anywhere other than Wisconsin for Franken to run. Schumer is running in 2022, and Franken will be nearly eighty in 2028. As much as I'm sure he'd love to, he's not going to primary Gillibrand.
Read 6 tweets
10 Sep
I just hate this rhetoric so much. America won't be worse off if Democrats rack up huge electoral majorities. It won't be worse off if the GOP implodes.
I understand why politicians said this kind of stuff fifty years ago, although it was dopey back then too. But in 2021? It just makes you look weak, and it makes you look weird.
The US is currently facing a grave and imminent threat of descending into one-party rule, but it's not a threat of the GOP collapsing into irrelevance. It's the other thing. Talk about that. Scream about it. Fight it, and tell us you're fighting it every time you open your mouth.
Read 5 tweets
9 Sep
It’s an untrue allegation because what Rowling actually said was “I've ignored porn tweeted at children,” and defamatory because Rowling has deep pockets and British libel law sucks.
Since Rowling stan Twitter has discovered this tweet, a little more: The question at hand isn't whether Juan Mac's tweet was kind, or fair, or nice. It's whether the tweet was defamatory. It wasn't, not under any reasonable definition of that word.
Also, it turns out that Mac didn't even misquote Rowling in the original tweet. Image
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!