Justice Kennedy says gay marriage ruling uproar will fade like '89 flag ruling

[GFR7]

Is he correct, or self-deluded, to think this issue will fade as the other did?

SAN DIEGO (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday likened controversy over the court's decision to allow gay marriage to public reaction over the 1989 ruling that said burning an American flag was protected free speech.

Kennedy, who was the deciding vote in both cases, described how the reaction decades ago was critical at first but changed over time.

His remarks at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference were his first public comments since he wrote the decision last month that put an end to same-sex marriage bans in 14 states. Kennedy drew the comparison in response to a moderator's question about how justices weather reaction to closely watched rulings.

"Eighty senators went to the floor of the Senate to denounce the court," he said of the 1989 ruling. "President Bush took the week off and visited flag factories, but I noticed that after two or three months people began thinking about the issues."

http://www.greenevillesun.com/news/...cle_4134f7c5-8ef2-57ab-b69b-b16980db3ac7.html

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hes deluded.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm pretty certain that in a few generations, those who fought so adamantly against this will be looked back on in the same way we now look back on those who fought so adamantly against allowing interracial marriage.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm pretty certain that in a few generations, those who fought so adamantly against this will be looked back on in the same way we now look back on those who fought so adamantly against allowing interracial marriage.

What do you want to bet, there wont be a few more generations.

 

[GFR7]

Hes deluded.

I think so, too. This is not the kind of issue to fade away....

 

[GFR7]

I'm pretty certain that in a few generations, those who fought so adamantly against this will be looked back on in the same way we now look back on those who fought so adamantly against allowing interracial marriage.

No, I don't think so. I don't think it will follow such a trajectory.

It will more likely follow this trajectory:

In Los Angeles, among other hip places, in the early 1970s, many parents thought it was cool to smoke pot with their 14 yr old; to discuss sex with them, to drink with them, to take them to nudist camps. Now, Child Protective Services jail them, and place their children in foster care. I think it will mirror this.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you want to bet, there wont be a few more generations.

When do you think we'll be able to answer that question?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I don't think so. I don't think it will follow such a trajectory.

It will more likely follow this trajectory:

In Los Angeles, among other hip places, in the early 1970s, many parents thought it was cool to smoke pot with their 14 yr old; to discuss sex with them, to drink with them, to take them to nudist camps. Now, Child Protective Services jail them, and place their children in foster care. I think it will mirror this.

I don't see enough similarities between the two to justify using one to draw conclusions about the other.

With interracial marriage however, there are some very stark similarities, most notably how those against both interracial marriage and same sex marriage justified their position via appeals to "what God intended".

 

[Angel4Truth]

When do you think we'll be able to answer that question?

Who is we, is there more than one of you?

 

[republicanchick]

Is he correct, or self-deluded, to think this issue will fade as the other did?


3ac7.html[/url]

I wonder if God is forgetting?




++

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't see enough similarities between the two to justify using one to draw conclusions about the other.

With interracial marriage however, there are some very stark similarities, most notably how those against both interracial marriage and same sex marriage justified their position via appeals to "what God intended".

There was never a prohibition on interracial marriage in scripture. There is a clear prohibition on homosexuality.

 

[GFR7]

I don't see enough similarities between the two to justify using one to draw conclusions about the other.

With interracial marriage however, there are some very stark similarities, most notably how those against both interracial marriage and same sex marriage justified their position via appeals to "what God intended".

But race is a fixed trait. And a black woman marrying a white man does not change the nature of marriage.

I think gay marriage will be repealed, and fall out of favor in the coming fourth turning crisis (due around 2020).

 

[Jose Fly]

Who is we, is there more than one of you?

You and me. You offered up a bet, remember?

 

[Granite]

It'll be common place in a generation. We'll be a lesson for what not to do in many cases. The bad guys lost, sure. But it never should have come to this in the first place.

 

[GFR7]

I wonder if God is forgetting?




++

I doubt it

 

[republicanchick]

I doubt it

yeh, but who thinks about HIM?

He's old news...



___

 

[GFR7]

It'll be common place in a generation. We'll be a lesson for what not to do in many cases. The bad guys lost, sure. But it never should have come to this in the first place.

I can see fully your conclusion, given your premises. But you'll find you're wrong. It won't work out as you imagine. Remember these words in the coming years.

 

[Jose Fly]

But race is a fixed trait.

But which race you marry is a choice.

And a black woman marrying a white man does not change the nature of marriage.

According to those fighting against it, it did.

I think gay marriage will be repealed, and fall out of favor in the coming fourth turning crisis (due around 2020).

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You and me. You offered up a bet, remember?

Think even if we made another generation completely down the line, you and i would even still be living at the end of even one?

 

[GFR7]

yeh, but who thinks about HIM?

He's old news...



___

True lain: