WATCH: Texas AG Says He’d Defend A Sodomy Law To SCOTUS

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority opinion issued by the Supreme Court, overturning Roe v. Wade and placing millions of pregnant people in danger, in states where they can no longer access potentially necessary medical care. However, he wrote his own concurring opinion, instead of joining the majority — and his concurring opinion is even more ominous.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote that other precedents based on a presumed right to privacy — such as, specifically, the right to access contraceptives, the right to be in a same-sex marriage, and even the right to be in a same-sex relationship — could all also be revisited by the Supreme Court.

Of course, these rights are all well-established precedents, and overturning any of them would not be popular with the American people, and some conservatives have already come forward to insist that this won’t happen.

Some of that might be a little reassuring — if the same wasn’t true across the board about overturning Roe.

So, will it happen? Are these basic rights, including the privacy of one’s sex life, actually at risk?

Well, here’s the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, declaring that he’d be quite comfortable with taking a ban on sodomy to the Supreme Court.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he is willing to help Texas overturn gay marriage and uphold sodomy laws at the Supreme Court based on Clarence Thomas’ concurrence. pic.twitter.com/gxjAjWY395

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 1, 2022

See Also

Florida Judge Rules Trump Isn’t Exempt From Twitter’s Terms of Service, Sends Lawsuit to CA

Paxto proceeds to essentially invite the state legislature to experiment with language and come up with something that he can believe will pass Constitutional muster, by the judgment of the current Supreme Court, and says he would have to look at the exact legislation they come up with, but ultimately, “that’s my job.”

Of course, his job is, in part, to defend the state — but does he do so on a partisan basis? Notably, as recently as 2020, he refused to defend a state agency that was sued for issuing a warning to a judge who refused to perform same-sex marriages, as the Texas Tribune reported at the time. Choosing not to defend this agency, but agreeing to defend laws forbidding specific sex acts between consenting adults, is a questionable use of his professional discretion.