As Lincoln Freed Slaves, GOP Jurist Kennedy Liberates Gays

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 3:07 AM GMT
    22kennedy-web04-sfSpan.jpg

    NYT: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the onetime altar boy from Sacramento and conservative Republican, has advanced legal equality for gays more than any other American jurist.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/kennedys-gay-rights-rulings-seen-in-his-sacramento-roots.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 5:12 PM GMT
    Your adjective "onetime" might be better placed. He's still a conservative GOPer, but as all intelligent GOPers of that stripe realize, there's nothing at all inconsistent w/ his recognition of gay rights. It's the Fundamentalist faction of the GOP that is so against them. Still, it's a bit early to be predicting outcomes from SCOTUS, even for the NYT. I think we can all muster enough patience to get us thru the next two weeks, and if not, it will be a good exercise in strengthening that virtue. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidYour adjective "onetime" might be better placed. He's still a conservative GOPer, but as all intelligent GOPers of that stripe realize, there's nothing at all inconsistent w/ his recognition of gay rights. It's the Fundamentalist faction of the GOP that is so against them. .... icon_cool.gif



    Yes. An important distinction. Basically, there ARE no (or extremely few) Republicans in today's world – instead, there are Religicans, as the GOP of Lincoln has now long since been hijacked by the fundamentalist "Christian" nitwits obsessed with what goes on in a bedroom in the name of Jesus, which then has skewed their thinking on myriads of other issues into the realm of systematic craziness. What once were legitimate "Republican" values, whether one professed endorsing them or not, are virtually totally absent from today's public discourses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 10:50 PM GMT
    So 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?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 11:06 PM GMT
    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."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 11:27 PM GMT
    Appreciate the hyperlink to the article in Wikipedia. It was inadvertent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 11:47 PM GMT
    I used my own words and facts. If facts are available, they are used.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    They are facts that recite what Justice Kennedy has done for gays. Why must I make up facts to satisfy you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 4:07 AM GMT
    Of course, he's only in that position because thankfully we have four OTHER Supreme Court justices that are reasonably intelligent and fair-minded.

    He's the swing vote. That doesn't mean that we should be more thankful for him than the four liberal justices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidOf course, he's only in that position because thankfully we have four OTHER Supreme Court justices that are reasonably intelligent and fair-minded.

    He's the swing vote. That doesn't mean that we should be more thankful for him than the four liberal justices.


    You, I, or anyone else may well disagree w/ any of the SCOTUS Justices, but to call any of them less than "reasonably intelligent" is untrue. None of these people got to where they are by being dumb. Want proof? Look at any number of their counterparts in the executive a/o legislative branches, on BOTH sides of the aisle.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 23, 2015 4:26 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidI used my own words and facts. If facts are available, they are used.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!

    Yeah? The facts are used if they're available???
    Boy oh Boy you have a short memory and don't learn from your own mistakes, do you?

    Remember your failure to provide sources to back up your thread about the 10 poorest counties in the US being Republican???

    Just in case you don't, here it is again.

    woodsmen said
    The 10 Most Impoverished Places in America Are Governed by Republicans

    NYT: The 10 lowest counties in the country, by this ranking, include a cluster of six in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky (Breathitt, Clay, Jackson, Lee, Leslie and Magoffin), along with four others in various parts of the rural South: Humphreys County, Miss.; East Carroll Parish, La.; Jefferson County, Ga.; and Lee County, Ark.

    The ranking looks at six data points for each county in the United States: education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1


    ((((((((IMPORTANT NOTE THE LINK ABOVE WAS ADDED AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT MISREPRESENTING THE ARTICLE. THE REASON I WAS SUSPICIOUS OF IT WAS THE WOODSMAN ALWAYS USES NYTIMES FOR HIS SOURCE. I researched it county by county. The fact that this article does not even mention the political make up of the counties stands as clear evidence of his attempt to misrepresent it )))))))


    bobbobbob saidWoodsmen Caught Spreading BULLSHIT.
    Reading the article cited below I looked for any reference saying the counties Woodsmen listed are governed by GOP.


    woodsmen said The 10 Most Impoverished Places in America Are Governed by Republicans
    (LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES)

    NYT: The 10 lowest counties in the country, by this ranking, include a cluster of six in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky (Breathitt, Clay, Jackson, Lee, Leslie and Magoffin), along with four others in various parts of the rural South: Humphreys County, Miss.; East Carroll Parish, La.; Jefferson County, Ga.; and Lee County, Ark.


    Color coded for your easy comprehension

    Breathitt County KY. Democrats 10,390 / Repoblicans 888
    Clay County KY. Democrat majority until 2012. 2012 election fraud case busted 6 Democrat officials, 1 Republican. 156 years in sentences handed down. http://www.kentucky.com/2010/03/26/1197075/jury-convicts-all-8-defendants.html
    Jackson Co Ky. Democrats 312,251 / Republicans 176,884

    Lee County Ky Democrats 1,954 / 3,193
    Leslie County KY Democrats 948 / Republicans 7,507
    Magoffin County Ky Democrats 7,153 / Republicans 2,799 [url]http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Election%20Results/2010-2019/2014/statcnty.txt[/url]
    Humphreys County, Miss 77% Democrat 74% Black http://www.city-data.com/county/Humphreys_County-MS.html
    East Carroll Parrish La. 74+% Democrat 70% black. Obama got 87% of vote. http://www.louisiana-demographics.com/east-carroll-parish-demographics
    Jefferson County, Ga 55% black 54% Democrat. http://www.homefacts.com/politics/Georgia/Jefferson-County.html
    Lee County Arkansas 56% black 58% Democrats

    You can't make up your own facts just because you can't find any you like
    [/quote]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Here's the backlash from it.... I see why you started doing this type crap again. This had slipped off page one to page three in the forum so you thought everyone had forgotten about it.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4047136
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 4:30 PM GMT
    ^ So Bob, you are disagreeing with the facts I presented regarding Justice Kennedy has done for gays?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 23, 2015 4:44 PM GMT


    woodsmen said^ So Bob, you are disagreeing with the facts I presented regarding Justice Kennedy has done for gays?


    NOPE, Not at this moment because I've not refreshed up on Kennedy enough to have an opinion either way.

    I am stating as fact that you have already proven you DO NOT credit sources when it is in your best interest not to as you tried to do with me quoting directly from wikipedia to get around a very simple question that you never answered...

    Remember?
    All I asked for your reasoning and source for stating that the biggest problem with crime in Baltimore was the police force is 60% white. I repeated the question in polite but insistent way 3-4 times and all you did was try to avoid answering it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2015 3:24 AM GMT
    woodsmen said
    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."


    Sorry, but that entire list is irrelevant. Homosexuality being illegal is nowhere near as immoral as the act of owning legally owning a human being. The fact that you would even equate the two, is disgraceful and embarrassing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2015 4:05 AM GMT
    ^ You probably failed your SAT. An analogy is not an equation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
    woodsmen said^ You probably failed your SAT. An analogy is not an equation.


    That's your answer? A snarky comment? You are saying that slavery is morally equivalent to gays being unable to marry. Still won't address that...apparently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2015 1:38 PM GMT
    ^ You need to point out where I said slavery is moral equivalent of gay marriage.

    All I have read from you is that you found me "disgraceful and embarrassing." Those are personal attacks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    The Right to Marry Is Constitutional

    Justice Kennedy: No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    Religions Continue a Searching Debate

    Justice Kennedy: Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    Courts' Duty Is to Protect Minority With Haste

    Justice Kennedy: The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 4:24 PM GMT
    it is seldom a government gives something away for free. We have a long way to go from this but a new constitutional right is a good starting point.

    Continue to politically support those that gave it away.