The Unfathomable Self-Loathing Of Clarence Thomas

Forty-eight years ago, his marriage would have been declared illegal and he very probably would have been jailed.

One hundred years ago, the thought of him being a judge, let alone a lawyer, would have been absurd.

One hundred sixty years ago, he would have suffered under the bondsman's lash as a slave.

In his dissent in Obergfell, Thomas argues that the plaintiffs haven't been denied "liberty":

Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in
same-sex relationships.   To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace.  They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious
ceremonies in all States.  They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please.   Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.

Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental
restrictions.  Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make
vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies,
to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children.  The States have imposed no
such restrictions.  Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and
powers of attorney.

Doesn't this sound like a dissent someone would write if they were ruling against THOMAS' OWN MARRIAGE?

Furthermore, he goes on:

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements.  Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government.   They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms.  And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits.  But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have
recognized.

Funny, that's what Mildred and Richard Loving wanted.

But wait, the self-loathing continues. His justification for saying "this is different than Loving" is that the Lovings were granted government benefits--the State "gave its imprimatur".

His attitude is that "The states decide, and if some people decide otherwise, then tough titties".

After a paragraph in which he says "Religious freedom is the freedom to discriminate", the self-loathing really sets in.

Why do I say "self-loathing"?

Because the plaintiffs spoke about dignity and being granted the dignity of marriage. Thomas says the Constitution does not grant a "right to dignity" because according to the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal" so therefore people automatically have dignity because God. He goes on:

Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them.  And those denied
governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits.  The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

His conclusion is that the government cannot "grant liberty or dignity"

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded
from—not provided by—the State.  Today’s decision casts that truth aside.  In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded.  Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.

Thomas is saying that if he had his way, his own marriage, nay, his own STATUS as a PERSON would be in doubt because the people never would have voted nationally for it.

THAT is self-loathing. The blind refusal to acknowledge that which gave you your humanity and instead use the same arguments used against yourself to leave others in the same misery you yourself must be feeling.