Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Invoke Ju...

Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Invoke Justice Kennedy

There are 26 comments on the WILX-TV Lansing story from May 10, 2014, titled Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Invoke Justice Kennedy. In it, WILX-TV Lansing reports that:

Opponents of same-sex marriage are turning to the words of an influential judge to counter the pro-gay rights rulings of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy that are fueling the march toward legalized gay marriage in many states.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WILX-TV Lansing.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 May 10, 2014
Except marriage is generally viewed as a fundamentl RIGHT that all people possess, just as freedom of speech adn freedom of religion. There is no "RIGHT" to have one's race taken into account, and given special status for admission to a college.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2 May 10, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Except marriage is generally viewed as a fundamentl RIGHT that all people possess,
But it isn't true, is it? There are rules and requirements to be met.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa...

It is true that all people can marry, it isn't always true that they can marry whomever they want to.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But it isn't true, is it? There are rules and requirements to be met.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Pa...
It is true that all people can marry, it isn't always true that they can marry whomever they want to.
Well, even all so-called "fundamental rights" have limits.

One cannot legally sacrifice virgins because one believes one's religion commands it.

One cannot legally threaten the life of the POTUS, either by speech, or in print.

Children do not posses the same rights as adults, and people in prison do not possess the same rights as free citizens.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that all fundamental rights are without any limits whatsoever.

(and btw, there is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote" despite a widespread mistaken belief that there is.)

For something to be considered a "fundamental right" there has to be a widespread and belief that it is, and not only must it be widespread geographically, but it must that belief's support must be deep as well as widespread. At one time, there was a belief that one had a right to own slaves.

And some people believe that abortion is a right, while a very large amount of people do not believe that.

I think that a consensus on marriage equality for us will be achieved before a consensus on abortion is ever reached in the U.S.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4 May 10, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, even all so-called "fundamental rights" have limits.
Then we define "fundamental rights" differently. Fundamental rights are basic to our existence, there should be no laws, fees, requirements involved. Once these laws, fees and requirements are instituted then the 'right' is no longer a fundamental right. You need permission from the government.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we define "fundamental rights" differently. Fundamental rights are basic to our existence, there should be no laws, fees, requirements involved. Once these laws, fees and requirements are instituted then the 'right' is no longer a fundamental right. You need permission from the government.
As I said, there are obviously limits to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#6 May 10, 2014
Considering the way that Justice Kennedy has ruled in other "Marriage" cases, I believe that "people" like NOM, FOF and other opponents are really stretching if they "think" he will voted their way.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 May 10, 2014
jcofe wrote:
Considering the way that Justice Kennedy has ruled in other "Marriage" cases, I believe that "people" like NOM, FOF and other opponents are really stretching if they "think" he will voted their way.
I agree. I think we turned te corner on this a long time ago. There is simply not even a single good reason to deny us equal marriage rights, and there are many reasons to do so. And not a single court has ruled against us in any part of the country, from liberal California to conservative Arkansas.

We will just have to wait for at least 4 SCOTUS justices to agree to hear a case on this. My guess is 2 or 3 years. I can't see it going on longer than that.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#8 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we define
You're a moron and a bigot, so of course you're off in some weird, twisted definitional universe.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a moron and a bigot, so of course you're off in some weird, twisted definitional universe.
Another 7 seconds. Another screen name.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#10 May 10, 2014
Habitual swing voters on the Supreme Court are always the least distinguished minds on the Court.

I regard Uncle Thomas Clarence as being simple mad, but his mind is not mediocre in quite the same way an O'Connor's or Kennedy's would be.

An example is Kennedy's Lawrence decision - a result I, of course, agree with and at the same time a bizarrely written and argued opinion. Like many of his "religious" rights opinions.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a moron and a bigot, so of course you're off in some weird, twisted definitional universe.
Well, you're the Philly Freak, I'd rather be a moron,
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we define "fundamental rights" differently. Fundamental rights are basic to our existence, there should be no laws, fees, requirements involved. Once these laws, fees and requirements are instituted then the 'right' is no longer a fundamental right. You need permission from the government.
. "Fundamental rights are basic to our existence,..."

Do you mean food, clean water, clothing, shelter????
Or do you mean health care, education, voting, marriage????

Everyone needs 'permission' from the government to be legally married, yet SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Maybe you should correct their error. I bet it will come as a complete shock.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#13 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're the Philly Freak, I'd rather be a moron,
But you are, Blanche.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#14 May 10, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another 7 seconds. Another screen name.
That comment is as stupid now as it was the first 375 times you posted it, Fa-Foxy, Europa, Frank Stanton, Daniel P, et al.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're the Philly Freak, I'd rather be a moron,
Philly Freak ?! LOL That's it !

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 May 10, 2014
I miss Frank Stanton. :(

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#17 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're the Philly Freak, I'd rather be a moron,
Your wish has been granted.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18 May 10, 2014
GoldenGator wrote:
<quoted text>
That comment is as stupid now as it was the first 375 times you posted it, Fa-Foxy, Europa, Frank Stanton, Daniel P, et al.
I forgot about Europa.

That was a great movie. And it was all made on Long Island.:)
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#19 May 10, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're the Philly Freak, I'd rather be a moron,
Your wish is granted many times over, cre tin.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#20 May 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
. "Fundamental rights are basic to our existence,..."
Do you mean food, clean water, clothing, shelter????
Or do you mean health care, education, voting, marriage????
Everyone needs 'permission' from the government to be legally married, yet SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Maybe you should correct their error. I bet it will come as a complete shock.
Yes, a fundamental legal right, never a fundamental right. Unfortunately, there are people in positions of power that we give the authority to govern us. They tell us what is right and what is wrong. There is no 'fundamental' anything anymore. They tax us into submission. They make laws that control us. Why do they think they're smarter than us? Why do they think they know what is best for us? Why do you never get to vote for the person of your choice rather than the person they put up for bid? They say it's because you and I are too stupid to think for ourselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Anthony Kennedy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On Capitol Hill, Susan Collins will have more p... Mon usa needs new pre... 1
News Supreme Court takes up key case about partisan ... Oct 9 Red Crosse 22
News Janus v. AFSCME could end forced union contribu... Oct 8 Carol Welsh 2
News SCOTUS: Institutional Racism is RealBy Jay Mich... (Jun '15) Oct 3 T-BOS 2
News Supreme Court conservatives on rise as importan... Oct 1 Tomas 1
News US Supreme Court puts hold on appeals court rul... Sep '17 spud 8
News Supreme Court set to take up LGBT rights and re... Sep '17 Gremlin 3
More from around the web