Posted on 04/29/2015 7:48:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether states should be constitutionally obligated to issue same-sex marriage licenses adjourned Tuesday afternoon, Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson said in a news conference outside the building that the likely swing vote justice, Anthony Kennedy, was "not persuaded" by LGBT arguments.
As many are predicting the Supreme Court's decision in June to come down to a narrow 5-4 vote, Justice Kennedy has been pegged again as the justice who is likely to decide which way the court leans in making the tough decision on whether the 14th Amendment requires states to uphold same-sex marriages and validate same-sex marriage licenses given out by other states.
Kennedy pointed out in the hearing that "one of the problems" in this case is that the traditional man-woman definition of marriage has been the norm for "millennia," while the LGBT definition of marriage as being a union between two loving and consenting adults has only existed inside the United States for a decade, as Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in June 2004.
"One of the problems is when you think about these cases, you think about words or cases, and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time," Kennedy said. "But on a larger scale, ... it was about about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case. It's about 10 years."
Kennedy further explained that it would be difficult for a bench of unelected judges to issue a national ruling on this highly-debated issue when there is only 10 years of same-sex marriage for the court to examine.
"And so there's time for the scholars and the commentators and the bar and the public to engage in it. But still, 10 years is, I don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia," Kennedy added. "This definition has been with us for millennia. And it's very difficult for the court to say, 'oh well, we know better.'"
Speaking after the hearing, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson, who attended the arguments, asserted that Kennedy's concern about redefining a millenia of marriage was not eased by the subsequent response of pro-LGBT attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who stated that the issue of gay rights in America has been contested for over a century.
"Anthony Kennedy asked the next question and he says 'You want us to throw away a millenia of marriage as the union of a man and a woman based on 10 years of same-sex marriage,'" Anderson told the raucous crowd outside the court building. "Anthony Kennedy was not persuaded."
Cathy Ruse, who is a senior legal fellow at the Family Research Council and also observed the hearings, said that the lawyers on the LGBT side did not want to acknowledge the "history" of marriage argument.
"The fact that [Kennedy] is bringing up that distinction, shows that he is actually thinking of it in those terms, which the other side did not want to acknowledge that at all," Ruse told CP. "They didn't want to acknowledge the millennia and the importance of the history on the issue."
Although Kennedy was not sold that a "millennia" of traditional marriage can be redefined by the Supreme Court, that didn't stop him from asking difficult questions to attorney John Bursch, who argued in defense of the state of Michigan and other states with same-sex marriage bans.
Kennedy asked Bursch, who pushed the importance of the state holding a child-rearing view on marriage, why same-sex couples do not deserve the "same ennoblement" in their relationships.
Even though many social conservative attorneys and activists feel that Kennedy's "millennia" remark indicates that he may vote in favor of states' rights, Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Christian Post after the arguments that it was difficult to tell which side Kennedy is leaning.
"Those were good questions that [Kennedy] was asking but there were other times where [Bursch] was up and I thought [Kennedy] was asking things that would indicate that he might be leaning the other way," Lorence said. "I think it was very hard to read Justice Kennedy on this, except to say that I think he is giving serious consideration to the views on both points, which means it is probably going to be a five to four vote. For the other eight justices, where they came down was pretty clear for or against the state laws. We are just going to have to see."
Ruse additionally pointed to another Kennedy remark as an indication that he is "not comfortable" creating a new constitutional right.
"Justice Kennedy raised the issue of the [Washington vs.] Glucksberg case, which is the case in which the Supreme Court said no to the effort to make assisted suicide a constitutional right. Kennedy brought up Glucksberg. Kennedy voted no in Glucksberg. 'No, we are not going to create a new constitutional right,'" Ruse explains. "So, he brings up Glucksberg in this context. That is interesting. What he says when he does is 'What about our obligation to define a fundamental right in its narrowest terms,' and he mentions Glucksberg. That says to me that he is uncomfortable, potentially not comfortable creating a new constitutional right because we don't have it defined in its narrowest terms."
Jeff Mateer, general counsel at the Liberty Institute, told the crowd after the hearing that he foresees the court ruling in June to allow the state's to continue deciding their own marriage laws.
"It was encouraging and prayers have been answered and you should feel encouraged. ... I was especially encouraged that several of the justices recognized that religious liberty is a key value," Mateer said. "In the end, what I think we are going to see that the court is going to issue a decision that respects the right of the democratic process and will send this case back to the states where it belongs and that we respect religious liberty and we do have the freedom to believe, to speak and act upon our beliefs."
To Conscience of a Conservative & tanknetter
Thanks to you both for taking the time to respond to my Post 26 query.
I didn’t know that ... DID they ?
Kennedy will vote with the liberals regardless of the questioning. We know what he thinks because he wrote previous majority rulings.
I hope I am wrong. Perhaps he has changed his mind but I seriously doubt it. Besides that, Roberts will vote with the liberals, too.
We have two chances: Slim and none. I wish it were not so.
No. A Christian group told Kagan and Ginsberg they should recuse themselves for performing "Same Sex Weddings" - but these two witches will not recuse.
“Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson said in a news conference outside the building that the likely swing vote justice, Anthony Kennedy, was “not persuaded” by LGBT arguments.”
Finally some good news from an objective source and extremely amazing that Ryan Anderson has the ability to read Justice Kennedy’s mind.
As far as I know, Ginsberg and Kagan, who presided over gay weddings, have not recused themselves.
Memo to Justice Kennedy #1 the US Government has NO Constitutional power to define marriage— NO power over Marriage at all #2 the 14th Amendment was not about sexual orientation It was about Race. It and the amendments on either side were all products of Reconstruction . -the 14th on rights was about equal rights for former black slaves- When adopted homosexual behavior was—and remained criminal behavior #3 the National Sin /National Crime of the government condoning and encouraging homosexual behavior exposes the Nation to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equal Lord of All(see Luther Martin in Maryland Jan.1788 affirming George Mason at the Constitutional Convention Aug. 22,1787 same subject) According to Lincoln “It behooves us,then, to humble ourselves before the Offended Power( Almighty God) to confess our National Sins, and Pray for (His) forgiveness and clemency” Otherwise (to borrow again from Lincoln”we must die by suicide.” As a Christian I believe Any people who put their trust in Man,and make flesh their strength,and are turned from God —have but two choices Repent of their Sins and confess their Sins ,Praying to God Almighty for forgiveness—or choose to die in their sins.Yes it is that simple.
Marriage was defined by the Church in America long before it was ever sanctioned by the States. When the Constitution was adopted the Federal Government recognized the regulation of Marriage as a religious rite remained with the States. It remained thus until after the State of Mass. led this current rebellion against Law/ Reason/ and Christianity Changing the Law in 2003 to accommodate the Reprobate Our National Iniquities increase (See Jeremiah 30:11-17 our example for how God punishes those whose iniquities increase and are turned from Him) 31 States responded to the Rebellion by passing laws that defined Marriage in the State as between a man and a woman. In recent years Photographers- Bakers- Farmers- Ordained Ministers- florists— Military Chaplains— and educators at purportedly Christian Schools have been punished by the various States for opposing the Queering of America.
Can anybody remember Chick-Fil-A? Or Phil Robinson and the Duck Dynasty? or the Benham Brothers each targeted for financial ruin to everyone except the lawyers for both sides. We ought to obey God rather than men... Acts 5:29 Ad as one Pastor said during the March for Marriage Christians need their own Civil Rights movement,today.
[[Swing Vote Justice Kennedy ‘Not Persuaded’ by LGBT Arguments at Supreme Court Hearing]]
Just like some justices weren’t persuaded the HC law was constitutional-
How about beign persuaded by the FACT that homosexuality is a DEVIANT lifestyle! You ban all other forms of DEVIANT lifestyles precisely because they are IMORAL- why have you all of a suddent even attempted ot consider that homosexuality is not a DEVIANT lifestyle?
This case has NOTHING to do with being sympathetic to a ‘class of people’ and EVERYTHING to do with DEVIANT lifestyles demanding we change our laws to accommodate hteir sinful lifestyle chocies
IF you, the court, decide homosexual marriages are just, then you MUST declare ALL DEVIANT lifestyle choices just to accommodate these other ‘classes of people’
IF you are going to claim that people practicing the DEVIANT lifestyle choice of homosexuality are a ‘class of people’, then you MUST afford that status to ALL DEVIANT people
Choosing a DEVIANT lifestyle does not make you a ‘class of people’ Being black, white, Mexican, French etc makes you a class of people- Choosing a DEVIANT lifestyle means a person is mentally sick-
These are the arguments that should be beign made by the supreme court justices- yet the homosexual supporting left on the court are trying to make it out that homosexuals are a ‘class of people’ ‘deserving of dignity’ the way minority groups are deserving of dignity
Comparing gay people to minority groups is shameful! And that is precisely what the left on the court are doing- Being gay is NOT a characteristic of a class of people- it is an action- a CHOICE- minority groups do NOT get to change their color- gay people however can and do change their sexual preferences all the time
The court should be ashamed of itself for even ‘discussing’ this issue any further- the case is clear cut and dried! Being gay does not make a person a ‘class of people’! IF you determine being gay makes people a ‘class of people’ then you MUST determine that pedophilia, necromancy, bestiality, polygamy all make practitioners a ‘class of people deserving of dignity’ as well
It is SHAMEFUL that this friggin nonsense has even made it this far In the court system!
it’s sad that we even have to contemplate sending CHIEF JUSTICES on the supreme court material to remind them what the constitution, it’s amendments , and the bill of right etc actually mean-
These people should be ruling OBJECTIVELY and they should have thrown this case out of court because it is so freakin clear that people are trying to twist the meaning of things to suit their gay agenda!
The SC’s response, when told the case was coming to them should have been
“Are you kidding me? Get this out of our court- of course gay marriage is NOT a right- you should be ashamed of yourselves for even bringing this to us! You should know better than that!”
Doesn’t matter, they already have Roberts.
I like the Heritage Foundation, but this is just wishful thinking. Kennedy is the one who put all of this in motion. No way he walks that back.
Keep dreaming. They should but they both have shown a total lack of principles.
Subject: homosexuality is unConstitutional
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There is NOTHING I've encountered with the homosexual community in the last two weeks that can be identified with;
a more perfect union,
establishment of justice,
domestic tranquility,
common defense,
general welfare,
and most importantly to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they cannot be a perticipant in securing blessings because they produce no posterity
Because they cannot reproduce, They are a culture of death, no different than islam.
They are selfish so they cannot be part of a general welfare,
They endeavor to disengage themselves so they cannot be a participant in domestic tranquility,
They seek no justice but rather special entreaty,
Homosexuality is unConstitutional and not American
They are aliens unwilling to assimulate to a pre-existing, well operating culture They seek discord amongst the peaceful
Homosexuality is a death cult
(and with the 24/7/wall-to-wall Baltimore .... it wouldn't take too much rewording to apply this THERE)
(Comments, critiques and flames welcome .... I'm an equal opportunity offender)
I think you are right, Kennedy votes no but Reliable Roberts will not fail his masters on the left.
The result of a pro gay ruling will destroy society and chaos will reign as many Christians will not comply. Churches will be closed by the government and there will be arrests and round ups of Christians. Ancient Rome anyone???
AB sur Lootly Keyrect.
I just go with BLT
lol had to read that 4 times before I got what it meant- Yup- I’m a bit slow on the uptake sometimes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.