-In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas made it illegal for states to ban gay s*xual activity. But the Supreme Court has opened the door to reinstating those bans.


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he’s willing to defend Texas’ law banning “sodomy” which was overturned by the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case if the Supreme Court rules that the states should be able to regulate issues such as s*x, birth control, and same-s*x marriage.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturned the landmark Roe decision, ending the national right to an abortion, Paxton ordered his office closed for a holiday “as a memorial to the millions of lives lost due to abortion.” Paxton is also a virulently anti-gay politician who provided the legal underpinning for Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order to investigate parents of transgender children for child abuse, and taken the city of Houston to court over benefits for same-s*x couples.

In an appearance on NewsNation Saturday, Paxton was asked if he would “feel comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy,” as well as gay marriage and birth control.

“Yeah I mean, there’s all kinds of issues here, but certainly, the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional issues dealing with, they were legislative issues,” Paxton told NewsNation. “[Abortion] was one of those issues, and there may be more.”

Asked specifically about Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state anti-sodomy law and made all such laws invalid nationwide, Paxton said: “My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I'm certainly willing and able to do that.”

This isn’t exactly a hypothetical. In a solo concurrence to the Dobbs decision, a*sociate Justice Clarence Thomas—perhaps the most far-right member of the Court—said the Court should revisit other decisions that, like Roe, had their legal basis in the 14th Amendment and substantive due process.

“In future we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. Griswold v. Connecticut is a 1965 case that enshrined the right of married couples to buy and use contraception.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas added, quoting himself.

Texas, which previously enacted the nation’s most restrictive abortion law by banning abortion after six weeks, had banned abortion before Roe, and never took that law off the books. The Dobbs decision allowed that law to once again go into effect–but on Tuesday, a judge in Harris County issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from enforcing it.

“Today a Harris County judge froze pre-Roe laws criminalizing abortion in TX. But w/ SCOTUS’s Dobbs decision, these laws are 100% in effect & constitutional,” Paxton said in a tweet Tuesday. “The judge’s decision is wrong. I’m immediately appealing. I’ll ensure we have all the legal tools to keep TX pro-life!”

Twitter

Today a Harris County judge froze pre-Roe laws criminalizing abortion in TX. But w/ SCOTUS’s Dobbs decision, these laws are 100% in effect & constitutional. The judge’s decision is wrong. I’m immediately appealing. I’ll ensure we have all the legal tools to keep TX pro-life!

— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) June 28, 2022

;s=19

Rochelle Garza, the Democratic nominee running against Paxton in the fall and a former ACLU staff attorney, responded to Paxton’s comments by tweeting that “they won’t stop till they roll back all of our civil rights.”

“We MUST kick Ken Paxton out of office this Nov.,” Garza wrote. “When I’m Attorney General, Texans will have a Civil Rights Division to protect ALL of our rights.”

Twitter

Roe was just the first — they won’t stop till they roll back all of our civil rights.

We MUST kick Ken Paxton out of office this Nov.

When I’m Attorney General, Texans will have a Civil Rights Division to protect ALL of our rights.

Y’all means all. Period. https://t.co/PlfnF6vvNg

— Rochelle Garza (@RochelleMGarza) June 28, 2022

;s=19

 https://www.vice.com/en/a .. rce=reddit.com


Paxton got felonies by the way

Texas fu*king lost

After Paxton stuck his d*ck in other people’s a*s, he wants to make it illegal

People like to twist sh*t to push propaganda but if this is true

I don't like the homos as much as the next man but let them sickos do what they please, they are grown. Republicans are morons yo, you get moment and go full retard.

I support the idea but Texas taking sh*t way too far

Need to pass something to keep gay sh*t out of kids entertainment

The economy is fu*ked and these people wasting resources and time on pointless sh*t. How do u even enforce a sodomy law?

When the Supreme Court ruled that we have no intrinsic right to privacy this was one of the obvious results. Government has no business regulating what consenting adults freely do with each other s*xually but when you're a grievance party and not a principled party you just look for your next target and how to hurt them

These anti-privacy rulings are going to hurt all of us eventually. Maybe Roe being overturned doesn't impact you and maybe this doesn't impact you but they're not done. They're coming after birth control next.

view video

Its kinda comical that they fought the taliban and hate/make disparaging comments about socially conservative Islamist political movements like the muslim brotherhood but meanwhile they have the same policies...that's why they call them "talibaptists"

They hypocrisy is really not funny though, it's pure racism. Force democracy and liberal values on socially conservative brown countries

...while subverting democracy and enforcing socially conservative Christian policies at home???

America needs to stop lying. It is about white christian supremacy, point blank, period, the end.

It becomes more and more blatant with every Freudian slip

Allah's punishment is fierce and severe

Boogersugar said When the Supreme Court ruled that we have no intrinsic right to privacy this was one of the obvious results. Government has no business regulating what consenting adults freely do with each other s*xually but when you're a grievance party and not a principled party you just look for your next target and how to hurt them These anti-privacy rulings are going to hurt all of us eventually. Maybe Roe being overturned doesn't impact you and maybe this doesn't impact you but they're not done. They're coming after birth control next.

Yup, Alito thought he covered his a*s politically when he wrote "oh but no this ruling has nothing to do with all that sh*t Thomas is writing about, this ONLY effects the right to abortion."

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL legal reasoning invalidated the entire foundation of all those things Thomas mentioned. Alito knew exactly what he was doing, he just didn't want the court to take the hit.

The fact is, Dobbs overturned the entire "penumbra of rights" that was found in Roe which is what all of those things were based on. So at this point the entire legal reasoning behind all of those decisions has zero foundation and can be destroyed as soon as the court wants to do so.

if church and state is separate then i dont see why politics should worry about gays gaying.


im curious, if 2 gays go to saudi arabia or dubai on vacation and start kissing on the beach...do the police lock the gays up?

We’re basically in a recession and World war 3 is about to kick off but this is the discussion

Weird hill to die on.....

Skateboard T said Yup, Alito thought he covered his a*s politically when he wrote "oh but no this ruling has nothing to do with all that sh*t Thomas is writing about, this ONLY effects the right to abortion." Meanwhile, the ACTUAL legal reasoning invalidated the entire foundation of all those things Thomas mentioned. Alito knew exactly what he was doing, he just didn't want the court to take the hit. The fact is, Dobbs overturned the entire "penumbra of rights" that was found in Roe which is what all of those things were based on. So at this point the entire legal reasoning behind all of those decisions has zero foundation and can be destroyed as soon as the court wants to do so.

Incorrect

Roe v Wade ands the rational in it being overturned has no connection to sodomy

Leave it to the GOP to be idiotic and miss the point.

all people in political positions that want to waste resources on stupid sh*t need to be shot execution style

I might be wrong, but oral s*x is considered a form of sodomy by the government. Don’t matter if it’s mans on mans, or mans and a women.

Again, might be wrong.. but I’m pretty sure it is or was included.

Nah, yall want this. The "agenda" right?

Don't switch up now that an entire classroom got massacred, abortion is out the window and the conservative court is showing yall just what "traditional values" mean when it comes to America. Yall celebrate when some nation in Africa has a death penalty for being gay. Yall "wish it was the good ol days when you could beat up gay people". Yall were celebrating when some cop in Jamaica cut up some little boys pants because he thought they were too tight and therefore gay. Matt Gaetz is out here trafficking underage girls for s*x, but we more concerned about D Wade's kid.

fu*k yall whining about?

America will soon be great again and Boosie, Charleston White and the rest of you fatherless nikkas can sleep at night knowing the world will no longer be going to hell because of someone's s*xuality




























'Tarded a*s nikkas

and how exactly do you enforce a sodomy law?

The South said I might be wrong, but oral s*x is considered a form of sodomy by the government. Don’t matter if it’s mans on mans, or mans and a women. Again, might be wrong.. but I’m pretty sure it is or was included.

Yes, I believe sodomy does cover oral s*x.

Dehone said Yes, I believe sodomy does cover oral s*x.

doesnt it just mean anal and oral s*x

who does it to who not really considered

Dehone said Yes, I believe sodomy does cover oral s*x.

Ban on doggy style next.

Boogersugar said When the Supreme Court ruled that we have no intrinsic right to privacy this was one of the obvious results. Government has no business regulating what consenting adults freely do with each other s*xually but when you're a grievance party and not a principled party you just look for your next target and how to hurt them These anti-privacy rulings are going to hurt all of us eventually. Maybe Roe being overturned doesn't impact you and maybe this doesn't impact you but they're not done. They're coming after birth control next.

"sodomy" is really any s*xual situation thats not for procreation. And its so vague they gonna be able outlaw anything they don't like

view video

isnt cowboy butt s*x already illegal