This is the man who will decide the definition of marriage in America. In case you don’t know, his name is Anthony McLeod Kennedy. He is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and, as stated, he will most likely decide the definition of marriage for the rest of the nation.
It is painfully ironic that the nation that tries to go about solving all of the problems of the world by spreading the “gospel” of democracy will decide one of the most important questions that a society can possibly answer in the most undemocratic of ways. We are going to end up leaving this decision of such fundamental importance up to one man. Justice Kennedy will define marriage for us.
Judge Walker Has Spoken — The Definition of Marriage Includes Homosexual Couples
I wrote yesterday of the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. In that case, Justice Walker declared California’s Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. This decision was received as a great victory for the homosexual movement, and rightly it should be. It is an astoundingly activist opinion on a number of fronts, even going so far as to try to suggest that homosexual marriage is actually not change in the definition of marriage at all. Rather, he asserts, it is just a change in the way we view and understand gender roles. He writes:
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages. (p. 116)
So, there you have it. The very definition of marriage includes same-sex couples according to Judge Walker.
The Ninth Circuit Will Probably Agree
Of course, that opinion has already been appealed. It will now go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit is probably the most liberal leaning Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation, and it is the most overturned Circuit by the Supreme Court.
I am awful at handicapping things like this, but my guess is that the Ninth Circuit will uphold Justice Walker’s ruling in some shape or form. The reasoning may be a little different–a tweak here, an adjustment there–but I expect the substance will be the same, i.e., the Constitution of the United States of America will be found to guarantee the right of homosexuals to get married.
The Buck Stops at the Supreme Court — And Justice Kennedy’s Vote Will Decide It
Then, that opinion will be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will undoubtedly take the case. And, eight of the nine votes can very likely be counted now. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will vote to overturn the Ninth Circuit and uphold Proposition 8. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and newly-appointed Elena Kagan will vote to affirm the Ninth Circuit and declare Proposition 8 to violate the Constitution. We need not speculate on the exact reasoning at this point, and there is no need to do so. These votes are just about as much of a sure thing as you can get.
Thus, the swing vote will be Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. He will cast the deciding vote. So, in the United States of America, purportedly a democracy but better described as a democratic republic, where the people are supposed to be free and decide matters like this, one man will make the decision. Justice Kennedy will define marriage in America. What will he decide? Only God knows for sure, but there is reason for concern.
Again, I am awful at handicapping things like this. I honestly thought that John McCain could win the Presidency if he could just win the Republican primary. I thought he was too centrist to win a primary, but perfect for the Presidency. Of course, he won the primary but is not our President. So, my crystal ball is a little cloudy.
Justice Kennedy Will Probably Agree — Marriage Will Likely be Redefined to Include Homosexual Couples
That qualification being given, I don’t think it looks very good. Justice Kennedy was the author of the Court’s 1996 opinion Romer v. Evans, which struck down a provision in the Colorado Constitution that was designed to prevent homosexuals from bringing certain discrimination claims. Further, he authored the Court’s outrageously controversial opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution prohibits criminal prosecution and sanction of homosexual sodomy. That case was decided in 2003, and it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, which was decided just 17 years earlier in 1986. Most recently, Justice Kennedy joined the Court’s liberal bloc in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The opinion, which also dealt with a case from the Ninth Circuit, held that Hastings College of Law could refuse funds and official recognition to the Christian Legal Society chapter on its campus on the grounds that it would not permit non-Christians or practicing homosexuals to be a part of its membership or leadership. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.
So, we see that Justice Kennedy doesn’t mind invalidating state constitutional provisions to “protect” homosexuals from “discrimination.” We also see that he feels the Constitution, written at a time when nearly everyone in Western Civilization agreed that homosexuality was a vile, criminal act, actually protects homosexuals from criminal prosecution. Will he see this as just the next logical step in the advancement of “freedom” for homosexuals?
My guess is yes, he will. I suspect that Justice Kennedy will be sucked into the madness of believing that the battle for homosexual “rights” is akin to struggle of African-Americans for their civil rights in the 1960s. I think he will see it as his opportunity to put his mark on history–to be one day revered as the man who needed great courage to grant freedom to an oppressed minority group amid hostile and uncertain times. My guess is he will vote with the liberal bloc, and I expect he will get the author the opinion. In a few years when this gets to the Supreme Court and we get an opinion, we can see if my crystal ball has gotten any clearer.
Because, of course, I could well be wrong. Maybe God will intervene and spare us this disastrous outcome. But, just in case He doesn’t, we might aught be brushing up on the Biblical doctrine of resistance to tyrants. We may need it.