Skip to comments.Kennedy’s Former Clerk Calls Him ‘First Gay Justice’
Posted on 06/27/2013 8:46:52 AM PDT by Sopater
Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is the first gay justice for writing Wednesdays majority opinion in the Defense of Marriage Act case, after already writing the opinion in two other homosexual rights cases, a Cornell University law professor said.
Michael C. Dorf, professor of law at Cornell and a former clerk for Kennedy, said Kennedys legacy is secure.
If Bill Clinton was the first Black president, Anthony Kennedy has now firmly secured his place in history as the first gay Justice, Dorf said in a statement. As the author of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and now United States v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy makes clear that he not only accepts, but welcomes the task of writing majestic opinions affirming the dignity of gay persons and couples.
In the 5-4 ruling in the United States vs. Windsor, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that said the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.
In the Romer v. Evans case, Colorado voters approved a law to prevent any city, town, or county in the state from making homosexuals a protected class. The Supreme Court struck down the Colorado law in a 6-3 decision written by Kennedy in 1996.
In 2003, in another 6-3 vote, Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Lawrence v. Texas case, striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law, and effectively striking down all other anti-sodomy laws.
The DOMA decision did not require all states to recognize gay marriage; it only required that federal benefits go to same-sex couples if they were married in one of the 12 states that recognized homosexual marriage.
In a separate case on Wednesday, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court ruled 5-4 that the defenders of Californias Proposition 8 did not have standing, effectively killing the 2008 voter initiative to recognize only traditional marriage in the state because the state government did not defend the law. It also effectively legalizes homosexual marriage for California, a right bestowed on homosexual couples by the state Supreme Court.
Man, that’s creepy.
I know Kennedy’s son, Justin. What a POS!
That would be Stevens.
There is no such thing as gay marriage.
No Husband and Wife.
Just two male friends poking each other in the rectum, or two females friends masturbating each other.
That’s a good way of putting it, that they have jumped the shark. Their opinions are no longer worthy of any respect. They are political only. We are now officially in the era of the rule of men, not laws.
methinks that if all homosexual supremes recused themselves, the vote would have been closer to 4-3 upholding the law, perhaps 4-2
And Obama is our first gay, black President.
Assuming James Buchanan had no black ancestry.
What is about the name “Kennedy” that brings with it little intellect, morals, or creative ability, but much in the areas of booze running, crinking and female boinking?
If ever there were a reason for mandatory abortions, eliminating that family line is one.
The Devil is probably doing a facepalm about now, knowing he should have gone with his old pal Hillary, instead. :)
Why was Bill Clinton the first 'black president'? Any answer I can come up with is racist... Does anyone know?
There is no such thing as ‘sodomite marriage’...only the mentally-ill and their enablers would recognize such an abomination.
Infiltration into positions of influence is how the sodomites advance their agenda...
where’s David Souter?
“wheres David Souter?”
Off at the Bates Motel . . . with his dear mother.
“Infiltration into positions of influence is how the sodomites advance their agenda...”
“Infilitration into positions” is how they get their jollies, too.
Wickard v. Filburn put us into the rule of men. The Rule of Law can only comply with natural law. As soon as it crossed out of natural law you become a nation of whims.
This is why PC and government schooling is so dangerous. Every person deserves the dignity due to being a human being. That's the minimum. As soon as they act in a way contrary to God or Natural Law, why should I dignify them at all?