Someone once said, "Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. If fifty percent of airplanes crashed, would you get on one? " That being said, if someone believes the love they feel will be validated by a ring, who are we, or anyone else to deny them? Love is too rare in this world. Leave people the hell alone and quit judging them by your standards.
25
What motivates the Italians? Since only 3% of them go to church, and Baptist bible-thumpers are nearly unheard of, while folk magic and the hex are still widely practiced, the Italians' intractability about homosexual marriage cannot be ascribed to the Vatican, nor to any age group. At best they are menu Catholics except for culturally ingrained public rituals, for the most part. Similar marches in support of traditional marriage have happened in officially secular Paris, too.
Agence France Press reported:
"Hundreds of thousands gathered in Rome Saturday to demonstrate against gay unions and the teaching of gender theories in schools, as Prime Minister Matteo Renzi tries to push a civil union bill through parliament.
Holding aloft banners reading "The family will save the world" and "Let's defend our children", a sea of people crammed into the San Giovanni square near the Italian capital's historic centre to support family values.
The square, which can hold an estimated 300,000 people, was overflowing with the young, elderly and parents with toddlers, an AFP photographer said, with many more demonstrators spilling into nearby streets. Organisers for their part said one million people were taking part. Italian police never provide figures for demos."
What happens when a properly married gay couple from America moves to Europe, where no such provisions prevail?
Agence France Press reported:
"Hundreds of thousands gathered in Rome Saturday to demonstrate against gay unions and the teaching of gender theories in schools, as Prime Minister Matteo Renzi tries to push a civil union bill through parliament.
Holding aloft banners reading "The family will save the world" and "Let's defend our children", a sea of people crammed into the San Giovanni square near the Italian capital's historic centre to support family values.
The square, which can hold an estimated 300,000 people, was overflowing with the young, elderly and parents with toddlers, an AFP photographer said, with many more demonstrators spilling into nearby streets. Organisers for their part said one million people were taking part. Italian police never provide figures for demos."
What happens when a properly married gay couple from America moves to Europe, where no such provisions prevail?
3
Personally I'm not against gays while I'm not for them, also. I have long hair and earrings, just because I like it. There were a lot of cases in story of my life when gays thought that I'm one of them and tried to importune me. It was easy to explain that I'm straight, but still it was unpleasant. I think it is hard to be gay because you can fall in love with a boy, who is straight and who will never feel the same for you. This is hard theme, and I think that gays should have the same rights as straights in case these rights don't oppose rights of the same straights
3
"Personally I'm not against gays while I'm not for them, also"
What does that even mean?
What does earrings and long hair have to do with anything??
What is the value of this comment in the context of this article or marriage equality???
What does that even mean?
What does earrings and long hair have to do with anything??
What is the value of this comment in the context of this article or marriage equality???
14
Kennedy is simply an example of the "Cheney Effect." You can be an intolerant, inhuman right-wing corporatist and still support LGBT rights because a member of your own family (or in this case, a very close friend) is LGBT. For more examples of conservative hypocrisy coming home to roost, see "Nancy Reagan and stem-cell research" or "Sarah Palin and premarital sex."
5
This good Catholic altar boy and otherwise sensitive soul, gave us the democracy killing Citizens United. The Koch boys, Tea Party darlings who have made billions off coal, richly fund, without limit, accountability, or transparency, blatantly false political advertising espousing a Tea Party agenda, thanks in large measure to Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens.
What good Kennedy may do for our society in rightfully helping to rectify eons of discrimination against gay individuals is exponentially eclipsed by the bad he has unleashed with his fellow conservative mandarins on the Court by opening the flood gates of dark money via Citizens United that is slowing drowning our precious democracy.
What good Kennedy may do for our society in rightfully helping to rectify eons of discrimination against gay individuals is exponentially eclipsed by the bad he has unleashed with his fellow conservative mandarins on the Court by opening the flood gates of dark money via Citizens United that is slowing drowning our precious democracy.
21
As an old-time Sacramento attorney, I can report that every judge, lawyer and clerk in Sacramento who cared to know knew that Dean Schaber was gay. It was an open secret. What was less well known is that Justice Kennedy's father -- Anthony Kennedy -- who was President of the Sacramento County Bar Association in 1956, assisted minority attorneys starting out, and actively encouraged their participation in the Association so they could advance their own interests, the interests of their clients, and the interests of the community. Subsequently several African-American attorneys have risen through the ranks and served as President of the Association. Today the Wiley Manuel Bar Association carries on this tradition with active mentoring and community activities. It is a history of which Justice Kennedy is rightly proud, and it has doubtless had an impact on his outlook on the world, the rule of law, and the advancement of the core republican principles upon which the United States is founded.
27
Every judge, lawyer and clerk in Sacramento who cared to know knew that Dean Schaber was gay. Raymond Burr would visit him at the courthouse. It was an open secret. What was less well known is that Justice Kennedy's father -- Anthony Kennedy -- who was President of the Sacramento County Bar Association in 1956, assisted minority attorneys staring out, and actively encouraged their participation in the Association so they could advance their own interests, the interests of their clients, and the interests of the community. Subsequently several African-American attorneys have risen through the ranks and served as President of the Association. Today the Wiley Manuel Bar Association carries on this tradition with active mentoring and community activities. It is a history of which Justice Kennedy is rightly proud (he told me so), and it has doubtless had an impact on his outlook on the world, the rule of law, and the advancement of the core republican principles upon which the United States is founded.
3
For those who think or or holding out hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the state's rights arguments and these bans on same sex marriage, it seems to me that they are ignoring a huge elephant in the room.
Anti-SSM and "state's rights" forces could not even gather FOUR, let alone five, Justices to grant Certiorari and forestall SSM from becoming law in 20 states. To think the Court will now somehow magically reverse course and rule that these bans pass constitutional scrutiny, tossing thousands of marriages into legal limbo and creating such huge legal chaos of the Court's own making, is, to say the least, incredibly illogical.
Anti-SSM and "state's rights" forces could not even gather FOUR, let alone five, Justices to grant Certiorari and forestall SSM from becoming law in 20 states. To think the Court will now somehow magically reverse course and rule that these bans pass constitutional scrutiny, tossing thousands of marriages into legal limbo and creating such huge legal chaos of the Court's own making, is, to say the least, incredibly illogical.
9
Can someone please explain to me why the 10th Amendment
which reserves to the States certain rights is held to be overridden
by a somewhat novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the eyes
of those who want "Same Gender Marriages" to be approved by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
[I expect the Supreme Court to uphold the rulings in favour of
'Same Gender Marriages" ]
which reserves to the States certain rights is held to be overridden
by a somewhat novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the eyes
of those who want "Same Gender Marriages" to be approved by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
[I expect the Supreme Court to uphold the rulings in favour of
'Same Gender Marriages" ]
5
Americans have the right to be treated equally. States aren't allowed to enact laws that violate equal treatment. It's really pretty simple.
9
10th trumped by 14th: Equal protection.
Look up Loving V, Virginia
That was easy. Next?
Look up Loving V, Virginia
That was easy. Next?
9
DR,
Where does the 14th Amendment mention
"Same Gender Marriages" and if we follow your view
will not "Polygamous Marriages" have to be legally recognised ?
Where does the 14th Amendment mention
"Same Gender Marriages" and if we follow your view
will not "Polygamous Marriages" have to be legally recognised ?
1
Oh yeah, he's a real peach. A real "tolerant" person who sided with Scalia and the rest of the Right Wing Kangaroo Supreme Court that gutted the Civil Rights Voting Act which the right wing states took as permission to make it harder and harder for low income and women to vote. Oh yeah, very "tolerant" of him, tolerant of racists, that is.
19
The fairness of gay marriage is so obvious that even a Reagan appointment can understand it.
But like others, I'm concerned about the court's elitest Republican wing
that keeps propping up an autocracy of money and power, like a Latin American court, with tortured decisions on citizens united and gore versus bush.
This forbodingly suggests they might revoke my right to the medical care that keeps me alive.
While I appreciate the Times lobbying effort -- survival always come first. Now do you happen to have any encouraging back story on why one of the 5 reactionaries on the court might not strike down Obamacare?
But like others, I'm concerned about the court's elitest Republican wing
that keeps propping up an autocracy of money and power, like a Latin American court, with tortured decisions on citizens united and gore versus bush.
This forbodingly suggests they might revoke my right to the medical care that keeps me alive.
While I appreciate the Times lobbying effort -- survival always come first. Now do you happen to have any encouraging back story on why one of the 5 reactionaries on the court might not strike down Obamacare?
4
When are people going to stop worshiping the Constitution and SCOTUS? It's a flawed, vague document that has had to be amended umpteen times and is interpreted differently by every succeeding generation, while the justices are so obviously partisan. Look at all the countries in the world that have already legalized same-sex marriage by enacting laws instead of by slicing and dicing their constitutions and thus allowing their elected leaders avoid taking a stand and doing their jobs.
3
Kennedy is very similar to Obama - Kennedy believes in progress for LGBT persons and doing so, privileges at least large sectors of LGBT persons who may already be privileged based on race or gender. Yet, Kennedy like Obama does not believe so much in equal rights for slave descendants. Yet this is acceptable in America, given Americas legacy of slavery, because it gives the illusion of progress for all in America.
2
The word "tolerance" and its concept, when used in the context of permitting the exercise of civil rights of a society's citizens is offensive. One can tolerate heat, cold, noise, etc. But the systematic disenfranchisement of groups of people is not "intolerant" it is simply unacceptable.
7
Would "intolerably unacceptable" work?
2
Reading Justice Kennedy's Citizens United decision, I only wish he knew some middle class or poor people. Then he would maybe empathize with our lack of a voice in a government completely owned by oligarchs & corporations.
18
He knows me, and I'm poor and middle-class. Hence the good Justice has steered a cool million $$ my way for my campaign, from Shawn in China.
3
Score one for the enlightened Catholic! Aware Catholics catch the fact that the single most important ethic for a Catholic person is, conscience developed by education.
It is this enlightened conscience that empowers a Catholic to then intelligently address the religious charge to, "strive to have faith" in the various teachings of the church. Hence for instance Catholics should accept evolution because education demands they accept scientific truth, while they work the inward struggle to accept the notion of a supernatural god, as a duty & responsibility.
It is not the teachings of the Church that form the conscience, this a reverse take on the process that leads doctrinaire Catholics to be religious fundamentalists.
It is this enlightened conscience that empowers a Catholic to then intelligently address the religious charge to, "strive to have faith" in the various teachings of the church. Hence for instance Catholics should accept evolution because education demands they accept scientific truth, while they work the inward struggle to accept the notion of a supernatural god, as a duty & responsibility.
It is not the teachings of the Church that form the conscience, this a reverse take on the process that leads doctrinaire Catholics to be religious fundamentalists.
8
A simple and classic example of how our society has been brainwashed, pushed and misled to think that marriage must be redefined. Equal rights fully exist now. Every person has the right to marry. Indeed, some choose not to, or perverse relationship. God is their judge, but God surely would commend all who simply stand up for His word - that He created marriage for man and wife.
2
You seem to have missed the fact that here in the U.S. we have a separation of church and state.
2
God has nothing to do with it. The United States is not a theocracy. Our laws are not based on your religious beliefs or the strictures of any church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. Marriage is a legal contract in the United States. If for you it is also a religious sacrament, then good. But neither you nor your god gets to decide anything for the rest of us. And, I think it's safe to say that no one needs to be the least bit scared of being judged by any supernatural being, neither gods, ghosts, nor spirits of any kind.
13
Another "simple and classic example of how our society has been brainwashed" is, I believe, the notion that gender be a determining factor in a marital union between two people who wish to form a union expressing their love and respect for each and who would simplly like to be with each other until dealth do them part.
3
I find using the word "tolerance" in discussing equal protection and treatment offensive. The GLBT folks do not " tolerate" heterosexual folks. Ethnic minorities do not "tolerate" white folks. We all live on this earth and we all belong.
5
No Supreme Court Justice since Roger B. Taney has done as much damage to the United States as Justice Kennedy. His quote on Citizens United about "...the appearance of corruption" will historically stand the test of time as being tragically ill-conceived. We will be a long time suffering under that sad perspective.
12
CU was properly decided, you simply do not like it. The correction is amending the Constitution, not denigrating a Justice for the decision.
2
CK - what pretzel logic do you use to turn a corporation into a person?
Corporations contributing to political campaigns is merely a convenience for top executives and board members to use corporate assets to promote their political beliefs plain and simple. When I worked for JPMorgan Chase and also owned their stock NO ONE solicited my opinion on political contributions and I can say that's also true of the vast majority of other shareholders and employees. Jamie Dimon made that decision for me based on HIS politics. It is a criminal appropriation of corporate assets.
Corporations contributing to political campaigns is merely a convenience for top executives and board members to use corporate assets to promote their political beliefs plain and simple. When I worked for JPMorgan Chase and also owned their stock NO ONE solicited my opinion on political contributions and I can say that's also true of the vast majority of other shareholders and employees. Jamie Dimon made that decision for me based on HIS politics. It is a criminal appropriation of corporate assets.
6
First you say the decision to turn corporations into people was "properly decided" then you say the "correction" is a constitutional amendment. Why would it need a correction then. The idea of a constitutional amendment to repair a careless supreme court is Fox News logic.
3
Kennedy, who is not an advocate of equal rights for women, may be the swing vote for gay marriage but you can't be a swing vote without a bench of support for upholding the constitutional rights of men and women alike, i.e. Ruth Bader Gingsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Those four deserve kudos for persuading (when they are able) Kennedy to uphold all of our constitutional rights. But it's too bad Kennedy thinks corporations also have constitutional rights (Citizens United). And it's also too bad that he has little regard for women (Ledbetter/Gonzalez) or for voting rights (Crawford). Another sad fact is that fewer than 15% of his law clerks have been women. Not my idea of an "evolved" justice.
25
CU did not decide corporations have constitutional rights, that idea was already in place. CU simply removed restrictions, ie stated that arbitrary restrictions are not in keeping with precedent.
4
This article is sentimental mush. The refusal to redefine marriage has zero to do with being mean to people.
4
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. There's no redefining going on here.
9
Marriage has been defined as many different things throughout American history--Blacks could not marry, interracial couples could not marry, felons could not marry, gays could not marry.
All that has changed yet marriage remains the same institution it always was.
All that has changed yet marriage remains the same institution it always was.
4
Here in NY, same gender couples have been permitted to marry for years. I am not aware of my own traditional marriage having been "redefined".
5
The Supreme Court justices are truly tolerant of corporations only, everything is just a smokescreen.
4
The country is founded on property rights first and foremost, and expression of the ideas of Locke. Other rights have been properly expanded as an improvement but you might get your ducks in a row before you start shooting.
What blather, CK. When the country was founded, the drafters deliberately and conscientiously struck out the word "property" from the phrase "life, liberty, and property" and replaced it with "the pursuit of happiness."
The country is founded on enlightenment princples of free will and human dignity and freedom, i.e., liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only property mentioned in the Constitution was peoples arms and their houses. Not one word--ever--about corporations being people.
Get your own ducks in a row.
The country is founded on enlightenment princples of free will and human dignity and freedom, i.e., liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only property mentioned in the Constitution was peoples arms and their houses. Not one word--ever--about corporations being people.
Get your own ducks in a row.
5
Articles like this confirm the fact that no one sitting on the Supreme Court, or for that matter any appellant court, "calls balls and strikes." Whoever steps up to the plate is being judged by a court empire who is from somewhere and believes in something. Debates between conservative and liberal justices on how to interpret the constitution attempts to masks where they come from and what they believe. This court, above all others, has really unmask the ball and strikes metaphor.
4
Knowing Justice Kennedy, as I do, and having known Gordon Schaber as the driving force behind the success of the McGeorge School of Law (which routinely has the highest percentage of grads passing the bar in the State), I concur with everything written here. Regardless of how he rules on any particular case, you can be assured that he is a thoughtful jurist and a good and kind human being.
13
I am sure he was very thoughtful in twice voting for Citizens United.
Among all the other extreme right wing idealogical votes by the gang of five!
Among all the other extreme right wing idealogical votes by the gang of five!
2
At the risk of raining on an excellent article, for the July 2013 and July 2014 California bar exam settings, the pass rates for McGeorge graduates have been 18th and 15th, respectively, among the 21 ABA-approved law schools in California.
And shall we mention Bush v. Gore?
3
Of course the altar boy background was formative of his congenial views of homosexuality. Not that he's latent, it's just all those Masses listening to homilies about Forgiveness and Charity and Love that made him so malleable, quite confounding the Liberals seeking another Scalia-style, nominally GOP bogeyman to pillory.
3
That's interesting, church attendance hasn't done much for the Republican candidates for President and it certainly hasn't impacted you when it comes to things like kindness, charity etc.
6
It's going to be so refreshing not to have articles on same-sex marriage any more after they rule there is no constitutional basis for state bans for the simple fact that Charles will be out of a job commenting on it.
3
Most likely I will find more stuff to comment upon as one Liberal quest replaces a preceding one like a shark's tooth, M. I have catholic interests.
2
It was also an old white man on SCOTUS who paved the way for abortion-on-demand, 42 years and 55 Million reported abortions ago. So Justice Kennedy as a Liberal wild duck is not without precedent.
6
Justice Kennedy has certainly been critical to the long awaited recognition of gay rights but to say that he "advanced legal equality for gays more than any other American jurist" is laughable. In fact, he has simply joined the other justices of the Supreme Court who have long lobbied for such rights (ie, not the neanderthal Judges Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts). This is not to diminish Judge Kennedy's beliefs and votes but he is not the hero you are portraying. Very brave lower court Judges on every level who have held for Plaintiffs seeking to gain those same rights guaranteed heterosexuals are the real soldiers in this battle. Thank you Justice Kennedy for breaking away from your usual partners on the Court. That is where you have been bravest!
3
Anthony Kennedy will go down in history as one of the justices who subverted the US Constitution and stopped the voting recount in Florida which would have given the Presidency to Al Gore rather than the worst president in the history of the United States!
44
Seems to me Kennedy simply loves the spotlight.
I can imagine him giggling like a little child with a new puppy every time yet another Supreme Court decision comes down to him.
I can imagine him giggling like a little child with a new puppy every time yet another Supreme Court decision comes down to him.
3
Well the simple solution for that is for Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts to join him deciding to embrace the constitution that discriminatory bans on same-sex marriage are, well, unconstitutional.
But I imagine that's not the solution you would approve of.
But I imagine that's not the solution you would approve of.
1
It's amazing how many people lament the lack of "tolerance" by certain justices - which usually means if they agree with the poster's opinion they are tolerant, if not they are "haters", "horrific", "unraveling our democracy" (today's apparent catch phrase du jour) - yet they are utterly intolerant of any position or opinion with which they disagree. Many of these issues are not as black and white as some would like to pretend, and the cases often hinge on some nuances of the law. Justices are not supposed to just make stuff up to match the desired outcome.
4
Most of us are tolerant and civil. But is it really an issue of who is nice to whom?
It comes down to the question, does biology matter as a basis of marriage?
And where is this legally decided, the States or the Supreme Court?
It comes down to the question, does biology matter as a basis of marriage?
And where is this legally decided, the States or the Supreme Court?
4
I am heartened by his personal sympathies and evenhandedness toward the gay population. But please... This is not a question of what the Justices personally feel. This is about the law, autonomous from personal feeling. There are no legal grounds for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, so... What's love or friendship got to do with it?
8
Actually, if there are "no legal grounds for denying same-sex couples the right to marry," and Justice Kennedy is casting the deciding vote, doesn't that make the RATS of the Supreme Court criminals?
1
Kennedy just voted FOR the government endorsing the Confederate Flag mass murderer Dylann Roof used in his killings.
In the Supreme Court case Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans
That's NOT tolerance!
Kennedy presided over the actual TORTURE execution of Arizona inmate Joseph Rudolph Wood and let the man be tortured to death for 2 hours while lawyers asked Kennedy to stop the torture Kennedy wouldn't.
That's NOT tolerance!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/arizona-takes-nearly-2-hours-to-exe...
These are actual facts you can look up-Kennedy's not tolerant at all he just voted for mass murder Dylann Roof's Confederate Flag-that's what Kennedy believe's.
Kennedy's own record shows he's NOT tolerant so why the puff piece?
In the Supreme Court case Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans
That's NOT tolerance!
Kennedy presided over the actual TORTURE execution of Arizona inmate Joseph Rudolph Wood and let the man be tortured to death for 2 hours while lawyers asked Kennedy to stop the torture Kennedy wouldn't.
That's NOT tolerance!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/arizona-takes-nearly-2-hours-to-exe...
These are actual facts you can look up-Kennedy's not tolerant at all he just voted for mass murder Dylann Roof's Confederate Flag-that's what Kennedy believe's.
Kennedy's own record shows he's NOT tolerant so why the puff piece?
6
"Brutus was an honorable man."
Justice Kennedy's background - his father was a lobbyist, also made him tolerant of moneyed interests. The damage he has done to Democracy in the USA will live after him.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/citizens_united_supreme_court_justic...
Justice Kennedy's background - his father was a lobbyist, also made him tolerant of moneyed interests. The damage he has done to Democracy in the USA will live after him.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/citizens_united_supreme_court_justic...
6
I have heard for years about the Kennedy shift,,, away from his conservative roots.
But,,, Conservatives are for rights, Gun ownership, 'Don't Tread on Me.' Conservative,,, Constitutional,,,,,
Equal protection under the law sounds pretty conservative to me. I think Kennedy has remained consistent.
Liberal, Conservative,,, each seem to cherry pick the bit of the Constitution they want to agree with,,, or just to rankle the ''opposition. Is there a Constitutional Party? I tend to like them all.
But,,, Conservatives are for rights, Gun ownership, 'Don't Tread on Me.' Conservative,,, Constitutional,,,,,
Equal protection under the law sounds pretty conservative to me. I think Kennedy has remained consistent.
Liberal, Conservative,,, each seem to cherry pick the bit of the Constitution they want to agree with,,, or just to rankle the ''opposition. Is there a Constitutional Party? I tend to like them all.
1
Yeah so, so he tolerates gays.
What part of Christians loving the sinner, yet hating the sin is so hard for people to understand?
Any how, regardless of what we as citizens personally want, neither the SCOTUS, or any other part of our government should be involving itself in the business of marriage. Matrimony is a religious ritual, a joining of two people under the the eyes of God. And Gods are a subject that our Government is strictly forbidden from endorsing or pushing on others.
Or did you guys already forget that Democrats attempted multiple times to vote God off the Island after he interfered with liberal women and their desires for abortions?
What part of Christians loving the sinner, yet hating the sin is so hard for people to understand?
Any how, regardless of what we as citizens personally want, neither the SCOTUS, or any other part of our government should be involving itself in the business of marriage. Matrimony is a religious ritual, a joining of two people under the the eyes of God. And Gods are a subject that our Government is strictly forbidden from endorsing or pushing on others.
Or did you guys already forget that Democrats attempted multiple times to vote God off the Island after he interfered with liberal women and their desires for abortions?
3
I was married in a park and the ceremony was presided over by a judge. Religion had nothing to do with it.
As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults.
If people want to have a religious ceremony as well, they are free to do so but the U.S. is not a theocracy and religion has nothing to do with civil law.
As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults.
If people want to have a religious ceremony as well, they are free to do so but the U.S. is not a theocracy and religion has nothing to do with civil law.
31
Marriage is a civil ritual that Christianity inserted itself into only in the 12th century.
Civil recognition of marriage brings on many civil rights and privileges that prevent the citizenry from having a court decide every little thing like who makes medical decisions for you or who inherits your money.
Sure, continue to have whatever religious recognition you need for your marriage (and subsequent divorce for 50% of us), but your version of God has no place in discussion of civil marriage.
Civil recognition of marriage brings on many civil rights and privileges that prevent the citizenry from having a court decide every little thing like who makes medical decisions for you or who inherits your money.
Sure, continue to have whatever religious recognition you need for your marriage (and subsequent divorce for 50% of us), but your version of God has no place in discussion of civil marriage.
8
Hmmm, are you going to tell my parents, married at City Hall in Indiana in 1955 and who are both atheists that they are not married? We are celebrating their 60th in about a month, so will be news to them.
8
In honor of Justice Kennedy and his fine work, I'd like to make a donation of $1,000,000,000 dollars to the politician of his choice. I want his "free speech" to be heard.
9
Thank you. Justice Kennedy, my father's cousin once removed, has designated Charles! 2016 as the candidate most in need of a large donation. Please mail a certified check to Charles! 2016, P. O. Box 69, San Jose, CA 95125, and include your prayer requests. Bless you, Shawn.
9
As a conservative, I have similar complaints about Justice Kennedy as many of the liberals on this post do. I don't see in Justice Kennedy any consistent theory of constitutional interpretation, and often times his purely personal comments are wholly inapproprate for a judge. For example, in an abortion case from several years ago which upheld a state's restriction on the procedure (a holding I agreed with) Justice kennedy thre in some comments about how some women have emotional difficulties/ regret after having an abortion. While A pro-lifer like myself appreciates any arguments than can be marshalled on my side of the issue, that comment didn't belong in a Supreme Court opinion.
just this past week in a criminal case, Justice Kennedy remarked that being in solitary confinement for many years can take a toll. While this is undoubtetly true, the issue was tangential to the case and shouldn't have been included.
Again, my own conservative cards having been laid on the table, I believe that the comments and jurisprudence of someone like justice kennedy are the result of seeking vindication for sought after rights in the constitution rather than in the political process.
just this past week in a criminal case, Justice Kennedy remarked that being in solitary confinement for many years can take a toll. While this is undoubtetly true, the issue was tangential to the case and shouldn't have been included.
Again, my own conservative cards having been laid on the table, I believe that the comments and jurisprudence of someone like justice kennedy are the result of seeking vindication for sought after rights in the constitution rather than in the political process.
1
I get what you're saying but we're founded on the idea of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, a person's emotional well being is relevant. There are lots of lawsuits that take into account things like emotional distress.
2
first, congradulations on your recent nupitals as posted below. While the general stateemts about life, liberty, emotional distress are true, they don't really amount to a serious constitutional argument, more musings i would say.
Adam B - We might have to agree to disagree on this one. It would be interesting to run it past a legal scholar.
Many thanks for the congratulations. I've actually been married for 20 years although I'm happy to say that we're still as happy now as we were on that wonderful day.
Best wishes and thank you for the interesting food for thought.
Many thanks for the congratulations. I've actually been married for 20 years although I'm happy to say that we're still as happy now as we were on that wonderful day.
Best wishes and thank you for the interesting food for thought.
1
Justice Kennedy seems to fancy himself a champion of gay rights. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to lose much sleep over paternalistic laws affecting women's rights. People are full of contradictions. History will probably give him a B minus.
12
I am genuinely glad that Justice Kennedy is tolerant of and supportive of people who are gay and gay rights. That is fantastic.
But please don't call him overall tolerant. Justice Kennedy has been appallingly bad on women's rights and women's issues. His "former altar boy status" shows through loud and clear in his decisiosn to deny women equal wages (Ledbetter) and quietly destroy access to abortion. I'm glad Justice Kennedy sees gay men (because he never does talk about lesbians, does he?) as his equals. When will he see people-without-penises as his equals?
But please don't call him overall tolerant. Justice Kennedy has been appallingly bad on women's rights and women's issues. His "former altar boy status" shows through loud and clear in his decisiosn to deny women equal wages (Ledbetter) and quietly destroy access to abortion. I'm glad Justice Kennedy sees gay men (because he never does talk about lesbians, does he?) as his equals. When will he see people-without-penises as his equals?
61
Proud to have been in Mr. Kennedy's evening Con Law class in this low-ranked proprietary (at the time) mostly evening school for mid-level state bureaucrats, as the majority of my classmates were. I had the impression that Mr. Kennedy took the job so we students--most of whom either couldn't get into or attend a first-rate California law school, or had jobs or families to limit their choices--would at least have exposure to a first-rate legal mind. And we were!
Thanks for the story.
Thanks for the story.
1
Justice Kennedy "has advanced legal equality for gays more than any other American jurist". And a Reagan appointee at that. Strange how the world works.
it is essentially the one issue (or maybe two, his thoughts on incarceration are somewhat liberal as well) that he sides with liberals fairly consistently.
Just as the Supreme Court is about to release a ruling on Obama's health care program, with Judge Kennedy obviously being the swing voter, what should pop up in the New York Times but a puff piece, praising Kennedy's "tolerance."
What a coincidence!
What a coincidence!
2
The problem with the Supreme Court is that, with very few exceptions, all members have been white, privileged, wealthy or comfortably middle class, and have attended all the best schools.
With very few exceptions, none of them have ever had to struggle in life - to know what its like to choose between making the rent or feed your children.
They all live very privileged, cloistered lives. As a result we generally get very conservative - small c - rulings from the Supreme Court, which reflect its makeup.
With very few exceptions, none of them have ever had to struggle in life - to know what its like to choose between making the rent or feed your children.
They all live very privileged, cloistered lives. As a result we generally get very conservative - small c - rulings from the Supreme Court, which reflect its makeup.
5
Yet 9 white guys overturned separate but equal garbage that was really racist.
Elena Kagan has never tried a case in a court of law. (She gets stage fright worse than Barbara Streisand's good side, perhaps.) So some of the Justices have feet of clay, true.
So he is a product of where he was born, who he was born to and what influences he experienced through a long and vibrant life?
Okay, I'll buy that.
Now, Sheryl Stolberg, please give us another article, exactly the same in depth and nuance, on Justice Scalia, and explain his rigidity, lack of depth and willingness to foist his prejudices and fantasies on us.
After that, you can then explain "Hobby Lobby" to us all.
Okay, I'll buy that.
Now, Sheryl Stolberg, please give us another article, exactly the same in depth and nuance, on Justice Scalia, and explain his rigidity, lack of depth and willingness to foist his prejudices and fantasies on us.
After that, you can then explain "Hobby Lobby" to us all.
11
Who should marry whom is without question a States-rights issue, and not the purview of the Federal government. I've heard enough about the 14th amendment and its applicability to the issue of same-sex marriages. The 14th amendment's granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” To apply this to same-gender marriage is a phenomenal stretch and breach of constitutional interpretation.
The same-sex marriage question belongs solely to the States and to none other. If same-gender couples choose to marry each other, then do so in a State that supports it. But for those States whose citizens do not support it, please leave them alone.
And if the high court supports Federal mandates for States to perform same-gender marriage, what's next - removal of tax-exempt status for clergy who believe wholeheartedly that to perform same-gender marriages would violate their 1st amendment freedom of religion?
This has gotten way out of hand. For centuries, marriage has been a fundamental issue of State sovereignty. To have Justice Kennedy or any other member of the high court now tamper with the definition of marriage, and insist on States allowing the marriage of same-gender couples, would be a greater travesty of justice and fairness in the U.S.A.
The same-sex marriage question belongs solely to the States and to none other. If same-gender couples choose to marry each other, then do so in a State that supports it. But for those States whose citizens do not support it, please leave them alone.
And if the high court supports Federal mandates for States to perform same-gender marriage, what's next - removal of tax-exempt status for clergy who believe wholeheartedly that to perform same-gender marriages would violate their 1st amendment freedom of religion?
This has gotten way out of hand. For centuries, marriage has been a fundamental issue of State sovereignty. To have Justice Kennedy or any other member of the high court now tamper with the definition of marriage, and insist on States allowing the marriage of same-gender couples, would be a greater travesty of justice and fairness in the U.S.A.
2
Nope and Loving vs. Virginia already disproves everything you've said.
6
Two catholics cannot walk into a synagog and demand marriage by a rabbi, and vice verse. See how that works? No one is going to be telling any religious organization who they must marry. They never have and they never will in this country. And you cannot point to any legal case filed making a complaint to this affect.
DR's got you covered on the rest.
Does any teach civics in this country anymore?
DR's got you covered on the rest.
Does any teach civics in this country anymore?
3
To say that a gay couple should remain in a state that has marriage equality violates their Constitutional right to travel (as articulated in numerous court decisions). It also violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
"what's next - removal of tax-exempt status for clergy who believe wholeheartedly that to perform same-gender marriages would violate their 1st amendment freedom of religion?"
Did that happen after the Loving v Virginia ruling on interracial marriage? No, it did not. Because there is a difference between holy matrimony (the ceremony performed in a church) and the legal contract of marriage. The case before the Court is about legal marriage, not religious ritual.
"what's next - removal of tax-exempt status for clergy who believe wholeheartedly that to perform same-gender marriages would violate their 1st amendment freedom of religion?"
Did that happen after the Loving v Virginia ruling on interracial marriage? No, it did not. Because there is a difference between holy matrimony (the ceremony performed in a church) and the legal contract of marriage. The case before the Court is about legal marriage, not religious ritual.
4
One doesn't need to psychoanalyze a Justice to understand why Kennedy has made the rulings he has made. Kennedy is not Taney. He does not look upon black people as inferior to whites, either because "that's the way it's always been," or through a twisted interpretation of some phrase in the Bible. Kennedy, like any good lawyer, doesn't start his legal analysis from Bronze Age meanderings about the nature of relations among people. And like any good lawyer, he uses his own experience to question the rigid dogma of others. If you've ever worked closely with blacks (or Asians, or Jews, or Muslims, or Latinos....etc.), you know there's no discernable difference between them and anyone else. We're all the same species! So a good lawyer would readily reject ad hominems againt a class of humanity which is not based in reality, only mindless ignorance and prejudice.
So it is the shortest of leaps to extend this thought process to gays. Discriminating against them makes as much sense as discriminating against left-handed people. (In Latin, left is "sinister" and right is "dexter." Right-handers are thus dexterous, while left-handers are, well, sinister.) We're finally past that- 3 of our last 4 Presidents are left-handed. Hopefully Justice Kennedy will help gays escape the medieval curse still levied upon them by their fellow men.
So it is the shortest of leaps to extend this thought process to gays. Discriminating against them makes as much sense as discriminating against left-handed people. (In Latin, left is "sinister" and right is "dexter." Right-handers are thus dexterous, while left-handers are, well, sinister.) We're finally past that- 3 of our last 4 Presidents are left-handed. Hopefully Justice Kennedy will help gays escape the medieval curse still levied upon them by their fellow men.
5
I only hope that this brand of "tolerance" doesn't institutionalize intolerance, demonization and criminalizationn of the half of Americans who believe that marriage is between an man and a woman.
2
That's something libs can't contemplate. It's tolerance only if we bow to what they want. If not we are the bigots and gay haters.
1
No. You are encouraged,, I want you to hold your beliefs dear and firm.
But why should anyone's belief be shoved down everyone's throat? Upon what do you base your belief?
But why should anyone's belief be shoved down everyone's throat? Upon what do you base your belief?
2
No one is going to make straight people engage in same-sex marriage, so you can stop fretting. What some straight people may get called out on, however, is the notion that their bigotry is really religion. The claim by bigots that they are the real victims isn't going to fly.
20
Clearly, he didn't spend much time with women and people of color, because his opinions on women's equality, reproductive rights, and racial justice are HORRIFIC.
31
Sorry but I am still not mollified. I get the whole thing about his tolerance towards LGBT people. I have not forgiven him for his rulings with the right wing majority in Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and Dc v Heller to name a few cases where Mr. Kennedy was SO VERY on the wrong side of history. The fact that his father was a lobbyist for big tobacco might go some way toward explaining his helping to sell our democracy to the wealthy in Citizens United. Until and unless he apologizes for these decisions I am not buying ONE RED CENT of this puff piece by Ms. Stolberg.
45
He's also something of an opportunist, it seems to me . . .
1
This Supreme Court has unravelled our democracy, thread by thread. From all these 5-4 rulings on Ledbetter, abortion rights, Hobby Lobby, Unions (last year on dues), the McCutcheon ruling (first time ever to rule against Federal limits on campaign donations), affirmative action, Town of Greece (you can start a town meeting with prayer, thanks to 5 Catholic judges who seem to have a problem with separation of church and state), and of course Citizen's United and Bush v Gore.
Kennedy has been an extremely intolerant judge across the board on so many issues. I am happy for gay rights, but, and especially as a woman, it seems to me that that is just one aspect of our society and you are losing the forest for the trees.
Kennedy has been an extremely intolerant judge across the board on so many issues. I am happy for gay rights, but, and especially as a woman, it seems to me that that is just one aspect of our society and you are losing the forest for the trees.
80
A discrete tip of the hat to Gordon Schaber's orientation hangs in the UOP Law Library: a painted portrait of his possible/likely former partner, Raymond Burr.
1
It hangs there discreetly.
I am tired of people posting comments that certain decisions are "wrong" because they do not agree with them. I am sure that none of the agenda-zed posters could handle the pressure that must be felt by each of the nine justices when it comes to an up-or-down vote on any particular case.
One of the posts commented about decorum, regardless of the ruling. I wish that those who choose to comment would exercise that same restraint when writing their comments as well.
One of the posts commented about decorum, regardless of the ruling. I wish that those who choose to comment would exercise that same restraint when writing their comments as well.
3
You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. Yeah, the right wing activists on this court "felt pressure." So our nation had to endure 8 years of havoc unleashed by the painter in chief. So they had to sell our democracy to the people known as corporations. Need I go on?
1
Yeah, Clarence Thomas must feel a lot of pressure to never open his mouth or make a single argument ever. Real tough work.
1
This is reminiscent of Governor William Weld in Massachusetts who did great reforms to that state's civil rights laws for gays. It always came up that at Harvard he had a good friend he had roomed with who was gay. So, O.K., Weld understood we gay folk are O.K. people. Meanwhile, he did as much as he could to slash social services and education, as a proper modern Republican. Neat.
As another poster here says, in so many words, Bush V Gore and Citizen's United are also in he legacy of Kennedy. As a gay man, I don't much care if someone like Kennedy makes rulings that make it O.K. for me to marry if with the same hand he trashes the government by illegally installing a president and making corporations "people." At this point all tjhe nice guy stuff is moot.
As another poster here says, in so many words, Bush V Gore and Citizen's United are also in he legacy of Kennedy. As a gay man, I don't much care if someone like Kennedy makes rulings that make it O.K. for me to marry if with the same hand he trashes the government by illegally installing a president and making corporations "people." At this point all tjhe nice guy stuff is moot.
25
Thank you for writing this article. It reveals what many close observers knew, U cannot imagine that gay marriage will not held constitutional. I hope for an equal protection victory. As someone who has noted Professor Tribe's actions for a long time, I am glad that the general public will have the opportunity to see how responsible law is managed in this country. We do not shout at each other. Conservative justices are human. It is reassuring in term sof human behavior.
When gay marriage rights are held constitutional (don't count your chicks before they hatch), we must celebrate. Let us not tarry in celebration, however, but move swiflty for targeted enforcement by the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union. We need to pass broad enforcement statues through the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment with broader powers than a technical view of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is time for Congress to do so-if we win. Justice Kennedy may be the most convincing argument to certain right minded legislators that human decency must sometimes trump political considerations.
Professor Bork's views were obvious. I am so glad he failed. The man was lawless in many respects Constitutional law is not a rich feast or banquet. It ios constitutional law.. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Robets are not lawless. I respect them greatly. My vote would be different but it is their time.
When gay marriage rights are held constitutional (don't count your chicks before they hatch), we must celebrate. Let us not tarry in celebration, however, but move swiflty for targeted enforcement by the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union. We need to pass broad enforcement statues through the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment with broader powers than a technical view of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is time for Congress to do so-if we win. Justice Kennedy may be the most convincing argument to certain right minded legislators that human decency must sometimes trump political considerations.
Professor Bork's views were obvious. I am so glad he failed. The man was lawless in many respects Constitutional law is not a rich feast or banquet. It ios constitutional law.. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Robets are not lawless. I respect them greatly. My vote would be different but it is their time.
The intolerance expressed above and in many other comments here I find abhorrent. It is not enough to win the case and affirm the right, all dissent must be stamped out and destroyed in a tantrum reminiscent of a 7 year old "sore winner". We are allowed to have difference of opinions, people have a right to our faith and beliefs...on both sides of the issue. How many Christian photographers will you force out of business? The case of the bakery is particularly poignant and concerning. This establishment served gays on a regular basis, but when a couple of regular customers asked for a wedding cake, they refused. They were promptly shut down, mob tyranny at is finest. So, take your win in the next week and remember that to disagree with you is not to hate you, but when you attack those who disagree, you are in fact the hater.
I find it a strange commentary that Justice Kennedy is singled out as a justice who is tolerant of his fellow citizens, including gays. The personality characteristic of tolerance should be a fundamental requirement for all justices, judges and elected officials. Yet, the four other conservative justices, particularly Scalia and Thomas, are known for their arrogance and rigidity, not their tolerance or compassion. And I find it deeply disturbing that Justice Kennedy has expressed opinions in cases like Citizens United which are naieve at best, Ledbetter (involving employment discrimination against women), and Shelby County (the recent voting rights case which eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965), and reflect insensitivity to the plights of blacks and other minorities. Justice Kennedy has clay feet!
67
"Now, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether to grant a constitutional right to same-sex marriage,......."
This is how sick our system has become. The Supreme Court can't grant a Constitutional right, only an amendment can do that! And yet we pretend that it's perfectly fine for the Court to exceed it's authority.
How sad.
This is how sick our system has become. The Supreme Court can't grant a Constitutional right, only an amendment can do that! And yet we pretend that it's perfectly fine for the Court to exceed it's authority.
How sad.
31
There is a constitutional right to equal treatment. The Supreme Court is expected to uphold that right.
4
What's sick are the theocrats who want to run this country according to their medieval superstitions, and people who think they should be able to vote on whether to permit discrimination.
12
So "separate and equal" is still the law until the Constitution is amended? The Court is not "granting" (i.e. creating out of whole cloth) rights, it is determining whether the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law, even for people you might despise.
8
Justice Kennedy is described as using “a sense of empathy and sensitivity that is unusual." That trait is needed in a judge, for gay rights and other matters, because justices need to see the law as it affects citizens individually, not just as words scribbled on a page. Here's hoping that SCOTUS will soon make gay marriage the law of the land!
2
I do hope Kennedy votes to allow gay marriage and I expect that he will. However, it hardly makes up for the damage he has caused when he sides with the hard right wing of the SCOTUS. Those destructive decisions are unraveling democracy as we know it.
85
Kennedy is a disaster, carrying out the playbook of the one who appointed him. He's combined with the other four to remake our law in a remarkably short time in a way that will take generations to undo. I look forward to the time when he is off the Court. He is a tool of the hard right.
2
Tolerance !!! As in I'll tolerate and put up with it ??? It's about recognizing a right and given that right no tolerance is necessary.
1
All I will say is this.
I am a practicing Catholic. I assume that Justice Kennedy is also a Catholic. My faith tells me that gay marriage is wrong---unnatural, abnormal and immoral. But note that it is gay marriage I am opposed to---not gay people. That is a very definite and critical distinction.
I and many, many people of faith of all religions are opposed to gay marriage not only because our faith tells us it is wrong but because gay marriage is a totally unproven social experiment that has no reliable precedents in biology, history or law, has never survived and continued in any society in history as a viable social contract and is treated with opprobrium by all major religions.
With absolutely no track record and a whole lot of negative publicity why is there any logical and intelligent reason for SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage?
If gay marriage were a scientific theory it would have no standing and would be labeled as crackpot.
No reason to legalize gay marriage---none at all.
I am a practicing Catholic. I assume that Justice Kennedy is also a Catholic. My faith tells me that gay marriage is wrong---unnatural, abnormal and immoral. But note that it is gay marriage I am opposed to---not gay people. That is a very definite and critical distinction.
I and many, many people of faith of all religions are opposed to gay marriage not only because our faith tells us it is wrong but because gay marriage is a totally unproven social experiment that has no reliable precedents in biology, history or law, has never survived and continued in any society in history as a viable social contract and is treated with opprobrium by all major religions.
With absolutely no track record and a whole lot of negative publicity why is there any logical and intelligent reason for SCOTUS to legalize gay marriage?
If gay marriage were a scientific theory it would have no standing and would be labeled as crackpot.
No reason to legalize gay marriage---none at all.
4
The U.S. is not a theocracy, your religious beliefs are not part of our laws. You are free to practice the religion of your choice. You are not free to inflict your beliefs on the rest of us. It really is that simple.
4
Fortunately, the laws of the United States are not dictated by your personal religious beliefs or those of your church. The Roman Church and its minions are free to do as they wish, so long as their actions do not contradict the laws of the United States, which is gratefully NOT a theocracy. In other words, your religious beliefs have no bearing on my legal rights.
7
So, given we are not a theocracy and the constitution outlines separation of church and state, how do you propose we legally recognize the right of a church (and presumably only YOUR church) to determine rights? Do you really, really not see a problem with that?
Unitarians are a religion that DOES provide same-sex marriage and does NOT feel that it is "wrong---unnatural, abnormal and immoral", so they must be accommodated too, by your logic. How do you reconcile that? Do you get to say "Oh, but MY church is the REAL church?" and do we need to then amend the constitution to make the United States a theocracy? Where do the jews go? The muslims? the atheists? Do you line them up and march them to……?
Unitarians are a religion that DOES provide same-sex marriage and does NOT feel that it is "wrong---unnatural, abnormal and immoral", so they must be accommodated too, by your logic. How do you reconcile that? Do you get to say "Oh, but MY church is the REAL church?" and do we need to then amend the constitution to make the United States a theocracy? Where do the jews go? The muslims? the atheists? Do you line them up and march them to……?
4
In the Roberts Court, we have a preponderance of legal decisions in favor of corporations instead of "a law that seeks compassion." Thank goodness we got Justice Kennedy rather than Bork (although the Bork hearings began the squabbles and stonewalling over justices).
Not enough people seem to appreciate that although a Presidential election may be for only four years, their appointments to the Court are for life--and have incredible impact. Justice Stevens served on the Court from the time of my high school graduation to grandmotherhood.
Presidential elections -especially in regards to Supreme Court appointments- have long-lasting effects!
Not enough people seem to appreciate that although a Presidential election may be for only four years, their appointments to the Court are for life--and have incredible impact. Justice Stevens served on the Court from the time of my high school graduation to grandmotherhood.
Presidential elections -especially in regards to Supreme Court appointments- have long-lasting effects!
3
Some take their religion's morale seriously. Too many would be catastrophic for the Church.
1
Formation as an altar boy, presumably in the Catholic Church, and a scout in the BSA, with goodness as a result. Please take note.
3
Another jurist who is a good friend of Anthony Kennedy's speaks admiringly of the justice's ability to step "into the skin' of those his decisions affect."
Apparently that intellectual empathy does not extend to the ordinary citizens of the United States of America who feel they should have the power to select and choose their candidates for high office on a level playing field.
Had he actually been able to put himself in their place, he would have never voted for the pernicious Citizens United decision that equates money with free speech and is eroding our democracy more deeply with each election cycle.
Kennedy apparently does not feel our pain when it comes to the terrible effects unlimited money from the 1 percent is having on the ability of the 99 percent to choose leaders and hold them accountable if they act against our real interest and human needs.
Apparently that intellectual empathy does not extend to the ordinary citizens of the United States of America who feel they should have the power to select and choose their candidates for high office on a level playing field.
Had he actually been able to put himself in their place, he would have never voted for the pernicious Citizens United decision that equates money with free speech and is eroding our democracy more deeply with each election cycle.
Kennedy apparently does not feel our pain when it comes to the terrible effects unlimited money from the 1 percent is having on the ability of the 99 percent to choose leaders and hold them accountable if they act against our real interest and human needs.
53
An oath of sexual fidelity is taken in every marriage ceremony of any religion or no religion. It is common element of all marriages, even if disobeyed, and the most fundamental reason public policy encourages marriage.
When public policy makes the incentives to marry inaccessable to some based on value judgments of their sexuality, it creates second class citizens who can be seen as legitimate subjects of other forms of arbitrary discrimination.
Judges who can place themselves in the shoes of others when adjucating the law are all too rare.
When public policy makes the incentives to marry inaccessable to some based on value judgments of their sexuality, it creates second class citizens who can be seen as legitimate subjects of other forms of arbitrary discrimination.
Judges who can place themselves in the shoes of others when adjucating the law are all too rare.
1
In this day and age, anyone with an education should have an understanding and context for the inborn aspects of being gay. Similarly, anyone with eyes can see that loving LGBT families need the dignity and protection of equal rights when it comes to marriage. Here is hoping for common sense to prevail with Justice Kennedy and his brethren. Much of what they do is difficult; this should be easy.
3
For Kennedy, gays rights is a totally parochial agenda. Otherwise, in his decisions he's been happy to make the same old conservative deal with the devil that's destroying our democracy, and our souls.
The commitment to human and civil rights should be universal, and not limited to the lives of any single group of people or interest. Period.
The commitment to human and civil rights should be universal, and not limited to the lives of any single group of people or interest. Period.
34
Putting 9 Unelected people in charge of laws of the land is quite unusual in the American System. Their impact is felt to a lot of people for a very long time. What I find most unsettling is their usual split vote based on party lines. I had hoped they were unanimous or near-unanimous in their decisions to overrule the flaws of elected officials.
5
To call Kennedy open minded is a joke. I think the only thing he is doing is trying to polish up his image and it isn't happening. He is a Republican, Catholic clown who will be remembered for taking this country backward and into the hands of the rich, powerful and ultra religious. It isn't pretty.
17
The constitution surely does not prohibit gay marriage. And human beings clearly can live with and love whomever they want. But whether the constitution grants a right to gay marriage, in other words whether it imposes an obligation on government, is another matter entirely. Gay marriage may be a "fundamental human right" but that does not mean the constitution protects it.
5
The constitution protects the right to equal treatment.
2
All Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the Fourteenth Amendment. If one group has a "fundamental human right," then so do the others. If straight people can enter into the legal contract of marriage, then so can gay people. The Constitution does indeed protect those rights.
4
Mr. Mead is mistaken. Under the laws means what it says. If the law is that marriage is heterosexual, then equal protection means all heterosexuals can marry, i.e. obtain a marriage license. A fundamental human right is not a law. That is a good thing. Or would you rather have legislatures, or worse, unelected judges, decide what are fundamental human rights?
2
With Justice Kennedy there seems to be a commitment “to a law that seeks compassion, to a law that seeks justice.” In a society torn apart by contrary rigid visions and attitudes, it is a commitment that necessarily brings both reason and decency to civic life.
1
I don't know if there is a constitutional "right" to marriage, but I am certain that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not allow states to discriminate against same-sex marriages, regardless of the tier of scrutiny applied.
It really is that simple.
It really is that simple.
28
Your certainty is misplaced. The 14th was written specifically for the purpose of ensuring that the newly freed slaves could vote. One cannot take a section of the Constitution and expand beyond its intended boundaries. You'll need to write a new amendment.
1
Actually, you can take a section of the Constitution and expand it beyond its "intended boundaries," whatever on earth you mean by that. It's called interpreting the document, and it has been done throughout American history.
3
I agree, I just wrote the same opinion. Equal justice under the law.
We shouldn't overlook how selective Mr. Kennedy's "tolerance" might be viewed. He's not very tolerant of women seeking legal abortions. I don't know why Ms. Stolberg has been permitted to overlook this fact in her apparent praise for him.
44
I met Justice Kennedy in Sacramento in April at his library. He met with a group of school teachers and talked about due process and the Magna Carta. His emphasis in everything was on "the people" and "this democracy" we live in and how over the history of the nation "society changes". I did not ask him specifically about gay marriage, and he was coy enough to not get into current debates, but I was left with the strong idea that he will support it in a ruling; A teacher's intuition.
2
The judicial branch should not have any affiliation with political party. It just doesn't make sense to me that justice should in any way be understood as partisan. The decisions of the judicial branch should be seen as exercise in reason and faithfulness to the law. By reason, decisions of the Supreme Court should be unpredictable by the pundits and journalists. After all the unique trained legal mind should have a logic that is only sourced in the high-mindedness of justice. It should be explicit in the Constitution that appointees are not just in bigoted acclamation as heard in all of the hearings of recent appointees that they don't have biases. Chief Justice Roberts is strictly a legal neutralist. That's what he told us.
2
This is really interesting. Kennedy seems to actually believe in and practice the values that Republicans claim they stand for and hold dear.
5
Its truly interesting how the background of a justice seems to influence his or her behavior on the court years later. One would like to assume that constitutional issues and precedent would be paramount but one really has to question whether the application of the law in view of the Justice's background yields the fairest result.
3
He's no friend to women's causes.
36
Justice is not about advocating for the causes of gender, or those with different sexual preferences, its about upholding the Law.
1
decisions should be unsigned so that we cannot handicap or 'tailor' briefs
and gays can marry, they just can't marry each other
there is no Constitutional right to marry for love
and gays can marry, they just can't marry each other
there is no Constitutional right to marry for love
2
Same thing people said about interracial marriage "they has all the same rights, and, um, such". That didn't work out to well for you back then either.
Marriage is a contract between 2 persons, and 2 deny any 2 persons access to marriage based on mainly religious beliefs and/or despising them is clearly unconstitutional.
Marriage is a contract between 2 persons, and 2 deny any 2 persons access to marriage based on mainly religious beliefs and/or despising them is clearly unconstitutional.
2
"there is no Constitutional right to marry for love"
Well, we can be sure YOU didn't.
Well, we can be sure YOU didn't.
2
I guess the lead up to the landmark decision by the Supreme Court has both sides holding their collective breath. The outcome will either keep the status quo or change the social fabric of American society. No matter what is the decision hopefully both sides can practice decorum and tolerance to each other.
8
No matter the decision. There is only one decision that is equal justice for all.
The price for gay rights did not need to be our democracy. Kennedy has done extraordinary damage through his support of what amounted to two judicial coups, Bush V Gore, one of the most infamous decisions in American judicial history, and the equally repugnant Citizen's United. Thanks for the puff piece but no sale.
157
Be a practical man, Joel Nobody is perfect and we NEED Kennedy to complete the job. He is one year younger than I and the likely president WEB will replace him with someone much, much worse....
2
We can praise a person for being right without expecting him to be right one hundred percent of the time. Though I too lament Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, I don't see this article as a "puff piece" at all. I see it as an interesting background story on a man about whom I know little and who may end up being responsible for increasing my basic civil rights as an American.
7
Direct your complaint, Joel, to Ralph Nader and the 97,000 Florida votes he peeled off from Al Gore, which cost Gore the election, along with arthritic Floridians who couldn't handle hanging chads. The classic analysis is by Stuart Taylor in the National Journal. The SCOTUS imprimatur was just icing on the cake.
4
Obviously the most open-minded and least doctrinaire of the justices, he has quietly become (I doubt most Americans know who he is) one of, if not the most influential person in our country since the 80s. How different life would be if Bork or Ginsburg had been successful. I don't always think Kennedy is right, of course, but I do think so in the gay rights cases. I remember him saying, perhaps at his S. Ct. nomination hearing, that the Constitution works best when there is some "play around the joints" or words to that effect. That realistic view is what makes him the most important justice. What does it tell us about the court that he is the only justice whose opinion is hard to predict in close cases?
27
He can seek compassion, he can seek justice, but most of all he needs to read the constitution fairly, and not ascribe to it things that are not in it, just because they are in his head. No more penumbras and emanations. Should 320 million people be ruled by what is in one man's heart?
37
Should a minority of millions be ruled by the discomfort, if not outright prejudice of a majority? The Constitution is not a holy writ and its power does not derive from immutability.
4
Where in the Constitution or any of its amendments does it say the people have the right to own ammunition?
2
That a trick question?
'Yes' if what's in the man's heart supports your ideological agenda and 'No' if it doesn't?
'Yes' if what's in the man's heart supports your ideological agenda and 'No' if it doesn't?
It is simply not the business of government, let alone private individuals to decide who can marry whom except to protect vulnerable groups such as minors. Let consenting adults consent to what they will as long it doesn't harm others--offending is not harming and if we minded our own business it wouldn't offend. And let's not try to speak about what humankind's collection of higher beings is thinking--if indeed there are higher beings and if indeed they think as we know it--but that is another story
81
If marriage is not the business of government, then I assume you agree with the logical conclusion that the Supreme Court should not be hearing this case, as the Court clearly is part of government.
1