Today in Public Discourse, Carson Holloway sorts through Justice Kennedy's arguments relating to same-sex marriage:
...Kennedy's past opinions on related questions seem to indicate his openness to the constitutionalization of same-sex marriage, but the evidence is nevertheless equivocal. Kennedy authored Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down Texas's law against homosexual sodomy, and in that opinion Kennedy permitted himself to wax somewhat indignant about the supposed irrationality of moral disapproval of such conduct.
On the other hand, he also used that opinion to assure the nation, in the Court's name, that the issues in that case had nothing to do with the question of same-sex marriage. As a result, Kennedy might not be so favorably disposed to a constitutional claim for same-sex marriage, since the advance of that cause has been for the last decade linked to the work of state courts that turned Lawrence's reasoning precisely to the end that Kennedy and the Court disclaimed.
10 Comments
It could also be a way to give a Court a reasoning to reverse on narrow grounds, instead of ruling on the merits. See Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman , 433 U.S. 406 at 414 (1977)*, Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education , 458 U.S. 527 at 535 (1982)
* In Brinkman , the Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that "the Dayton Board was operating a dual school system, that it was constitutionally required to disestablish that system and its effects, that it had failed to discharge this duty, and that the consequences of the dual system, together with the intentionally segregative impact of various practices since 1954, were of systemwide import and an appropriate basis for a systemwide remedy" Brinkman , 443 U.S. 526 at 534-537 (1979)
My point exactly!
The credibility of the Supreme Court is at stake here. If Kennedy sides with the marriage corruption folks he will, in effect, discredit his finding (5 to 4) in Romer vs. and Lawrence vs.; showing them to be nothing more than part and parcel of a decade long conspiracy by the judiciary to manufacture a constitutional right to a federal recognition of sexual depravity.
Kennedy cautioned in his opinions in Rome vs. and Lawrence vs. to not read too much into his opinion; that these ruling should in no way be construed as an open door to same-sex marriage. Remember; Kennedy noted these assurances after Alito charged that the Kennedy majority was an attempt to manufacture a right to same-sex marriage.
This is why I don't believe Kennedy will vote to overturn prop 8.
While I'm not 100% sure on what SCOTUS will do on Prop 8, I really don't think that they (in 2012 at least) would author a sweeping opinion striking down all anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments across the United States. Justice Kennedy, who is certainly no friend of traditional Christianity, is still an incrementalist. He doesn't like to issue sweeping rulings that will generate massive public outcry. And a national 5-4 ruling striking down all the marriage laws in the country would probably be the most divisive single ruling since Roe v Wade (which was a 7-2 ruling).
Also, we need to look at this from a completely different perspective - 2012 could produce a new president (I pray to the Good Lord that it does!) who may well have the opportunity to replace some of the GOP-appointed old-timers on the court. This is by no means a done deal so let's just keep fighting the good fight!
Alito argued for "gay rights" as a lawyer in Pennsylvania,can he be counted on to vote to uphold Prop 8?
It is unfortunate that too few judges see the irrationality in homosexual conduct and the state interest in discouraging it.
What is even sadder Louis is that a group of less than ten judges can overule the votes of citizens in at least 31 states encompassing tens of millions of voters. That the 10th amendment no longer applies.
Since when did we the people ever give this much power to unelected judges.
Because the majority has no morals only power, they burned innocent people in Salem, voted for slavery and segregation in the south, Adolf Hitler in Germany or against women`s rights in Switzerland till 1986, ...
and in 31 states of the USA against the rights of a minority to marry by law - not in some begot church.
It was the Romer case were Scalia said "The Court had Chose sides in the culture war".
Apollonia,the "Salem witches" weren't burned.And people who want to be treated as doing something despite refusing to adhere to its basic definition aren't a "minority" with a "right" to have what they want to do instead declared "equal".
That gays have rights in one context does not mean they do so in all contexts.