Skip to comments.Why Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Will Support Marriage Equality
Posted on 02/17/2012 4:10:17 PM PST by presidio9
With the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, the debate on the constitutionality of marriage rights is hurtling toward the Supreme Court with increasing velocity. If and when the case reaches the Supreme Court, the decision will depend greatly on Justice Anthony Kennedy. Following the Appeals Court ruling last week, the next step for the case is for the backers of Proposition 8 to file an appeal. They can appeal the ruling to one of two places: a larger panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Appealing to a larger panel of the circuit court, however, is essentially just a pit stop on the way to the Supreme Court, since another Ninth Court ruling -- even by a larger panel -- can still be appealed to our nation's highest court.
Once the case reaches the Supreme Court though, there is no guarantee the Justices will hear it. The Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases each year, and only chooses a small percentage of those to hear and rule on, based on which cases they think actually concern constitutional issues. For the case to be heard, four of the nine justices must vote to put the case on the Court's calendar.
The question of whether or not the Court will hear this case also might hinge on the impact of not hearing it. If the case is directly appealed to the Supreme Court, and they choose not to hear it, the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling stands, and gay marriage would be legal in California. The more conservative Justices, like Justice Antonin Scalia, could feel compelled to take the case simply to ensure gay marriage does not become legal by the Court's inaction.
Some experts argue that Kennedy is not willing to offer an opinion that effectively states gay marriage is a constitutional right because of such a ruling's highly political nature. However, this way of thinking ignores not only Kennedy's history in rulings, but also his astute dedication to both the rule of law and his position on the court.
Far from being a leftist ideologue or right-wing strict constructionist, Kennedy has affirmed the Boy Scouts' right to discriminate and a woman's right to choose. He has struck down both affirmative action and anti-sodomy laws. Kennedy is often seen as a flip flopper, but his decisions speak more to a foundational concept of individual liberty than to confusion in his jurisprudence. To him, the Constitution is clear on the government role in honoring our rights as individuals, from freedom of speech to the equal protection clause.
While Justice Kennedy has allowed private businesses to prohibit homosexual membership, his views on the right to determine one's own sexual orientation and to be treated equally by the government have been clearly stated. Kennedy has repeatedly been in the majority, at times writing the majority opinion, for cases that strike down the criminalization of homosexuality. He has specifically expressed that the core of liberty, one of the foundational principles of our constitution, is the right to define one's own existence. If the right to be gay is among those individual rights protected by the constitution, then gay persons are subject to the same treatment under the law as heterosexuals.
Kennedy consistently writes in court opinions that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a constitutional guarantee for individual liberty, and that applying preferential treatment to certain groups denies individuals in other groups the same liberties. Therefore giving legal status only to heterosexual marriages allows the special privileges and recognition of a relationship to one group of people, while clearly denying it to another group.
The equal protection clause speaks to equal protection under the law. While marriages are often held in churches and synagogues, and performed by ordained ministers, the law is what is in question here. The state grants marriage licenses, and with them, certain rights and privileges to both spouses. It is these privileges, not the ability to marry in the local chapel, to which the Constitution applies. Based on his record, Kennedy will likely argue that it is these privileges - currently granted unequally by all but seven states (Washington State's newly signed marriage equality law will take effect June 7 unless an anti-gay marriage movement there gathers enough signatures by June 6 to put the law on the ballot in November) and the District of Columbia -- that are in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Kennedy won't vote in favor of gay marriage because it is morally correct. In fact, he doesn't think the Constitution is designed to determine morality.
"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," Kennedy wrote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992.
What Kennedy will do is use the very text of the Constitution as a guide and ask if the government is giving preference to one group over another. It is the preferential treatment that will concern Kennedy, and ultimately lead him to decide that state-sanctioned marriage must apply to gay couples as well. As a bumper sticker in support of gay marriage said: "If we have to get married, so do they."
The constitution is a powerful document -- one dependent not just on the strength of principles but on the wisdom of resiliency. The brilliance of the founders was not just in the drafting itself, but in including an articulated revision policy. Justice Kennedy himself has identified the promise of the Constitution's enduring wisdom, writing in Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Marriage equality? We already have that. Any unmarried adult in America may get married.
If Justice Kennedy agrees that perversion is just wonderful, where's the end to this?
As far as I'm concerned, if belaboring this point helps us politically (the returns will be diminishing from here on out), than by all means keep pressing it. Once it is no longer a favorable battle, then we've got much bigger fish to fry.
For what it's worth, I have gay friends. And I tell them to their face that they are good people, but they their "lifestyle" is a mental illness.
I think I recently heard that a woman married a building to save it from demolition....maybe in Seattle? I can’t understand why anyone think redefining a word, that has been around for centuries, to make some people feel better about themselves, is important. If they don’t feel good about themselves the way they are, they should go to a professional. Changing the definition of a word won’t make them feel better about themselves.
Liberty at any cost will eventually lead to slavery.
The end game is not now, nor has it ever been gay marriage, the objective is to outlaw Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you do not accept gay marriage you are a hater. You will not be able to teach school, work for any government office, and your place of business will have your work rules and lifestlyes dictated to you. Fines, and imprisonment will compel compliance where the offenders fail to fall into line.
Who wrote this crap? The Supremes will likely take the case, ignore the Ninth’s decision entirely, and address whether or not the Amendment can stand as written and passed. This isn’t the decision they want for precedent.
Where’s it end? A word of advice: Don’t turn around for one last look while you’re leaving.
Don’t count your vultures before they’re hatched. Anthony Kennedy has surprised us before, both in positive and in negative ways. If Republicans win the White House this year, look for him to retire.
Justice Kennedy = The Reagan Legacy
I have been surprised that Obama has not issued an executive order allowing same-sex couples to file under joint returns for income taxes.
You bring up a point that could stand some investigation. How many of the people in same sex marriages can verify that their marriage is sanctioned or practiced as such in any of the recognized religions in existence over the centuries. If no such history can be found the argument comes down to a modern day perverse status for the partners as well as for any church performing same sex marriages. If such an establihed history can be found then it seems a matter of church membership.
Ending the Cold War. 16 million jobs created. 25 years of unprecedented economic growth. Drawing a line in the sand with a key public employee union. Getting serious about federal drug enforcement. Revitalizing the GOP and the conservative movement. Restoring America's confidence in itself, and its standing in the world. +++PLUS+++ A relatively small number of mistakes and bad descisions (including but not limited to judicial nominations) = The Reagan Legacy
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.