louder_and_louder saidSo Justice Kennedy is the moral equivalent of Abraham Lincoln? Are you seriously equating the institution of slavery with a inability of a gay person not being able to be legally married?
First, it was only from 1967 that blacks are permitted to marry inter-racially. Second, am not a person to defend a GOP but Justice Kennedy in a series of decisions liberated gays:
Kennedy's concept of liberty has included some protections for sexual orientation. As early as 1980 then Judge Kennedy speculated that some homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected.
He wrote the Court's opinion in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims.
In 2003, he wrote the Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal laws against homosexual sodomy on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court.
On October 19, 2009, Kennedy temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed petitions calling for a referendum ballot measure that would repeal a gay rights domestic partnership law, but joined the subsequent majority decision in Doe v. Reed, which stated the Washington law permitting signature release was constitutional, but remanded the matter to the lower court to determine whether the release of this particular petition's signatures was constitutional.
In the 2010 case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court held that a public law college's policy requiring that all student organizations allow any student to join was constitutional. The Christian Legal Society wanted an exemption from the policy because the organization barred students based on religion and sexual orientation. Hastings College of Law refused to grant the exemption. The Court found that Hastings' policy was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Kennedy wrote a concurrence joining the majority.
On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was held unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. In the majority opinion on this case, Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."