“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their person-hood to deny them this right.
Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges
1.) “Rights come not from ancient sources alone” — Clearly a swipe at the Christian Scriptures. So if rights do not come from God alone what other God is there to give rights to man if not man as God?
2.) “Better informed understanding” — those poor poor fools of the past who were not bright enough to have the better informed understanding of this brilliant current generation. Of course this is generational snobbery. Any current living generation always has the advantage of having a “better informed understanding,” than those poor benighted fools who went before.
3.) We’re not disparaging you or your beliefs as wrong in the least. We are just saying that you did not have the “better informed understanding” that we have. No disparagement at all here. Your definition of marriage in the past was that in order for marriage to be possible you need to join male and female. Our better informed understanding will now re-define marriage so as to be defined as the joining of male and male or female and female. Let the Dictionary and all the Gods be damned, we will completely redefine marriage because of our “better informed understanding.”
4.) So, Christian beliefs as enacted law should not be but the religious beliefs of sodomites should be enacted law?
5.) I should think that the Mormons will be wanting to revisit Reynolds vs. US with this ruling.
6.) Is it ever proper to stigmatize or disparage any sexual self identity? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia? Remember Justice Kennedy you have created a right of self identity in this decision.
7.) If marriage can be mean anything then it means nothing. This decision moves the end of marriage if only because marriage no longer has any stable meaning.
In a sane world, Justice Anthony Kennedy would be committed to an insane asylum. Elsewhere in this decision he writes,
“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Yet, a few sentences later the man could write,
“And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”
Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges
First they themselves are defining and expressing their identity. Then, a few sentences later we find out about their “immutable nature.”
CONTRADICT MUCH?
If the sodomites are defining and expressing their identity how can it be the case that they have an immutable nature?
Just one more from Kennedy in his decision,
“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges
Kennedy found a Constitutional right that allows persons to define and express their identity?
Who knew that the Constitution supports Existentialism? Who knew that the Constitution embraces the notion that humans have not set nature? Who knew that the Constitution taught Existentialist post-modern Anthropology?
