In what will be remembered as one of the most dishonest rulings handed down, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to recognize same-sex unions as marriage in states where they have done so.
They also punted on California’s Proposition 8 on standing issues, refusing to rule on the merits of the case. In these two decisions, they have paved the way for people to pretend that same-sex unions are marriage. In the case rejecting Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and it reads like a press release for gay advocacy group rather than a Supreme Court opinion.
This fact was not lost on Justice Antonin Scalia, who torched Kennedy’s “logic” in his dissent. Nor was it lost on radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both of who took time during their broadcasts to read from Scalia’s dissent on Wednesday when it was handed down.
Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion for the Court, essentially said that we shall have “gay marriage” because there is no good faith reason to oppose it. Kennedy has labeled those of us who fight to maintain the centuries’ old definition of marriage bigots and enemies of the human race–hardly a legal argument.
No wonder the Left loves this decision! Not only do they get their long-desired government redefinition of the most important and sacred institution of civil society, they get the High Court to brand their opposition as bigots!
This opinion as authored by Kennedy undermines the integrity of the Court. From Scalia’s dissent:
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.
To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.
All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.
It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
This opinion weds the Secular Left (who want to undermine civic institutions because they get in the way of the utopian fascist state they pine for) and purist Libertarians (who push for unlimited freedom without consequences). This marriage of convenience (no pun intended) not only gives the government broad power to redefine institutions not of its own making (why are Libertarians for that), but it also pushes our Republic one step closer to branding Christianity a hate crime (something the Left desires and something not too many Libertarians would be bothered by if they’ve even giving thought to it happening).
What happened in this decision gives more credence to a criticism of the Court that has been voiced for a long time: the Constitutionality of anything and everything that comes to the Supreme Court is decided by whatever Anthony Kennedy feels like on any given day.
This is not how the Court is supposed to operate. They aren’t supposed to act on their own personal opinions and demagogue dissenters. They are supposed to tell us what is constitutional and what isn’t based on the actual wording of the Constitution.
Constitutionality was decided with this ruling. Instead, Anthony Kennedy got together with the Secular Left and flogged opposition to the redefinition of marriage. This decision outs 5 of the Supreme Court justices as hacks, plain and simple.
I leave you with the words of Will Cain of The Blaze, who, though I disagree with him (he agreed with the decision), questioned the means by which Kennedy arrived at his decision. Cain says of Kennedy:
“Anthony Kennedy is a man who has trouble finding a coherent sentence & a man who has trouble finding a logical conclusion.”
This opinion proves that Kennedy has a long way to go before he is able to find either.