Scalia obviously didn't think through all the aspects of his dissent and how it could have affected Thomas in other times. [snicker]

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  If consistency were a priority, a value, or even a sometimes-consideration for "conservatives," they would be entirely unable to weave together the crazy quilt of kooky tribal social policy "issues" and Koch Brothers policy preferences that combine to form the Republican "platform."
*  I am sure Thomas would argue that Loving v. Virginia would not have affected his relationship with his wife because they simply would have traveled to another state to be married. But that would contradict his other argument regarding dignity. What's dignified about having to run from one state to another to be afforded the same rights as others?
*  Scalia should not be on the supreme court, neither should Thomas. They ALWAYS vote against civil rights being granted. There is no way they could know what the founding fathers intended. I believe the founding fathers understood times change and wrote the constitution as they intended it to stand during changes in society.
*  Scalia is the prime example of the species he says he hates--"broad interpreters" of the Constitution. He demands "literalism," as in his dissent over the definition of "state" in the ACA case, but has no problem finding "corporation" in the Constitution--look as I might, I can't find it--and is quite willing to accept the premise that one man's speech is more valuable than another, based on the contents of his wallet.
*   He is just like those preachers that pick only parts of the bible and then interpret it to justify their prejudices.
*   We have had separation of religion in our schools for a long time. Oklahoma is removing the Ten Commandments statue from the State Building. Why do we have to bring religion into equal rights and discrimination laws? Not everyone believes in God or a religion. But everyone should have equal rights in America. Black or white, all ethnicities and Gay and Lesbians..
...................................................................................................................................................................
Scalia's Dissent in Obergefell (Same-Sex Marriage) Case Would Criminalize Justice Thomas's Marriage
By Paul Abrams, June 30, 2015

Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v Hodges -- the case that declared that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is best known for its tantrums and, as usual for the politician Scalia is rather than the jurist he is supposed to be, its hypocrisy.

Missed in Scalia's childish histrionics was his so-called 'originalist' approach for interpreting the Constitution (when it suits him, that is -- those who voted on the Second Amendment could not possibly have been thinking about semi-automatic assault weapons or 25 bullet magazines, but Scalia holds that those are protected).

In Obergefell, Scalia asserts that he knows that the people who voted to approve the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 were not thinking about same-sex marriage when they voted, and, therefore, the original intent of that Amendment prevents Scalia from finding a right to same-sex marriage in its guarantee of equal protection under the laws.

That same approach, however, would make Justice Clarence Thomas's interracial marriage illegal, and subject to criminal prosecution in Virginia, the Thomas's state of residence. As assuredly as voters in 1868 were not thinking about gay marriage when they voted for the Amendment, they certainly were not approving it to enable interracial marriages.

Interracial marriage, "miscegenation," was not only impermissible in Virginia, it was a criminal offense subject to time in jail. Citing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned the Virginia and other state statutes in the poetically-named case, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967.

According to Justice Scalia's reasoning, the people voting on the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not contemplate interracial marriage as what they were protecting by passing it. Hence, Scalia would have to say that Loving was wrongly decided.

That would make Scalia's right-wing buddy, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny, subject to imprisonment in Virginia.
...................................................................................................................................................................