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."
As well a Constitutionalist would be expected
Ruh Roh! Justice Kennedy, you WILL fall in line with the GLBT (gilberts roll of the tongue easier than LGBT) way of thinking or you will suffer the consequences. Which will be more severe than the misguided youts in B’more are gonna see.
Gay Marriage survives, as a tax.
Justice Kennedy doesn’t seem to realize this is necessary in order to criminalize Christianity.
Someone needs to send him a memo.
Didn’t Ginsburg and Sotomayer recuse themselves? So, it wouldn’t be 5-4 anyway......
Jack and Bill may have a right to enter into a binding agreement between themselves, but why should they have the right to force me or anyone else to be a party to their private agreement? Unlike traditional marriage, which benefits me and my community by producing the next generation of civil society, same sex living agreements are of no use to anyone beyond the private parties involved.
Here is a question: If the SC rules in favor of traditional marriage, does that reverse all the decisions by liberal federal judges who overturned MANY states’ laws banning gay marriage? I would think so.
The community has a vested interest in promoting marriage in order to ensure that people produce as few amoral, feral criminal progeny as possible. Turning marriage into a simple fondness contract completely disregards the impact to society of the feral children that would ensue from unstable pleasure unions. Why do you think the black community produces so many criminal thugs?
Homosexual faux marriage is just one aspect of the left's general attack on the nuclear family. Strong, moral, committed families produce decent civilized productive people generation after generation that generally have little need or use for a bloated, tyrannical feral government interfering in and controlling their lives. The real problem today is the systematic destruction of the nuclear family unit through no-fault divorce (marxists hate marriage and strong families). Homosexual faux marriage is a symptom, not a cause.
I kinda wish that the Supreme Court would go back to the days of secrecy. Every minute is analyzed and broke apart. I think back in the day there was a bit of interest in the Supreme Court due to the mystery. Now they all go around talking and discuss this and that. If one area should be mysterious it should be the Supreme Court. We really shouldn’t know much about it because really is knowing that Justice Ginsberg and Justice Scalia go on trips together really that important? I think it takes away the prestige of being on the Supreme Court. The only thing that the public should know is what the ruling is and the arguments. In fact, after confirmation we shouldn’t even know if they are aging or not.....ok annual photo I will accept but otherwise they should not be heard ever.
I can’t wait to see what a Sodo-riot looks like.
Roberts will vote for it, watch..
Perhaps, like with the Obamacare decision, it’s not Kennedy who is the swing vote.
If the SC rules in favor of traditional marriage, does that reverse all the decisions by liberal federal judges who overturned MANY states’ laws banning gay marriage?
And that is why it will survive. They will find that canceling 309,000 “marriages” would be to difficult. Would they have to redo all the taxes from those years, invalidate all kinds of things that married people get? What about those who divorced and are getting spousal support or one gave 50 percent of their money to the other due to divorce....do that money go back to original since the marriage was invalidated? I wish the states would have waiting on a Supreme Court decisions before allowing even on “gay marriage”. Then they definitely would have voted no to gay marriage. Now......I am not so sure they will. A 6-3 decision for gay marriage would not shock me a bit.
Now the arm twisting will begin behind closed doors.
I will be shocked if Justice Kennedy doesn’t vote to create “Gay” marriage.
No. Why would they have recused themselves?
Its all so ridiculous
Some political prognosticator holds a press-conference GUESSING what one judge will say, in an issue that is already decided.
The US government is a leviathan captured by statists and leftists, who have used up $18 Trillion in debt and countless more in printed-fiat money to conduct their social-engineering programs.
And you think what will be a tortured, academic ruling from one judge will matter at all?
Considering the track record of this sort of article before this, prepare for the SC to rule in favor of issuing.
I say again ... you can glean pretty much nothing from a Judge’s questions. I remember a big case I won on prior criminal acts before the VA Sup Ct that I was SURE I was going to lose because the Judges were all over me with some tough questions and pretty much ignored the Defendant’s atty.
Here’s hoping, but it means nothing.
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.