Justice Kennedy compares gay marriage uproar to flag burning

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.

The 78-year-old appointee of President Ronald Reagan has long been a crucial swing vote on the court, where four justices are reliable liberals and four others reliably conservative.

Click to expand...

Justice Kennedy compares gay marriage uproar to flag burning - Yahoo News

I agree with this assessment. Whenever the SCOTUS rules against the dearly held belief or ideology of one group or another, that group raises holy hell…for about a decade or so.

Then society in general adapts and adjusts, at least until the next decision that upsets some group or another is made. I’ve been on both sides of that line.

Of course some people will always remain opposed. But contrary to what some believe, life goes on...

Which is just about the time when the oldest part of society dies off and decades of brainwashing has reached across most generations left over.

And you should check out the recent thread about hippies being assaulted by bikers for burning the flag and you might notice people still consider that behavior bull****.

Henrin said:

And you should check out the recent thread about hippies being assaulted by bikers and you might notice people still consider that behavior bull****.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I guess you missed my comments in that thread. :unsure13:

Regarding Justice Kennedy, it seems that he and Roberts are both swing voters, whereas the other 7 vote as a block.

We need more Kennedy's and more Roberts' and less of the other kinds.

Captain Adverse said:

Justice Kennedy compares gay marriage uproar to flag burning - Yahoo News

I agree with this assessment. Whenever the SCOTUS rules against the dearly held belief or ideology of one group or another, that group raises holy hell…for about a decade or so.

Then society in general adapts and adjusts, at least until the next decision that upsets some group or another is made. I’ve been on both sides of that line.

Of course some people will always remain opposed. But contrary to what some believe, life goes on...

Click to expand...

You mean like he was squealing when they threatened to eminent domain his property? Too bad he didn't think to mention that some of us were complaining because it wasn't his decision to make in the first place. Too bad he so rarely remembers his oath. But he's there for a lifetime, and a public that can't even be bothered to maintain their constitution isn't going to remove him.

i really don't think he should be commenting so soon after the case. He had 35 pages to do so, time to let others talk. But really, none of them should even acknowledge public reaction since the only thing they are beholden to is the constitution. Just as scalia was a joke in lawrence vs texas with his "many americans don't want homos as neighbors and we shouldn't get involved in the culture war," i feel like kennedy should ignore entirely what most americans want

Captain Adverse said:

Justice Kennedy compares gay marriage uproar to flag burning - Yahoo News

I agree with this assessment. Whenever the SCOTUS rules against the dearly held belief or ideology of one group or another, that group raises holy hell…for about a decade or so.

Then society in general adapts and adjusts, at least until the next decision that upsets some group or another is made. I’ve been on both sides of that line.

Of course some people will always remain opposed. But contrary to what some believe, life goes on...

Click to expand...

The problem for the religious baker that the government took his right to perform his religion. This is a rather elementary change of the Constitution and would be more comparable to a decision, had USSC ruled out to rescind conscientious objection of draftees.

So, while I agree with Kennedy that the excitement dies out the consequences of this and a number of other decisions will change the country much more fundamentally than the flag ruling. I can only guess he chose the example of a wash ruling to deflect criticism from him.

Well, R v W was and has been controversial from the get-go, and only now (even after those old foggies have died off) we see a major shift in American opinion on the sanctity of life. Well that is unless you work for planned parenthood that is.

Rome, the Greeks, are but two examples of just how liberal progressives destroy nations internally. Not by the sword, but by nudging ever so slightly an increasingly dependent electorate to a point where they can no longer choose to vote for what's right for the country, only what's right for them, individually.. Add in swarming the means of education by a generation of 60's hippies, throw in a choke hold of the media, both news and television and movies, and it only takes 40 years to undo a once great and proud nation of hard working people, self motivating, and ambitious into a nation of cupcake narcissists.


If Rome, and Greece had TV and media, there's no way in hell they would have lasted as long as they did.

To me there's no difference to what happened to them, and to what's happening to us and the west now. None!


Tim-

This is true.

However, much like with flag burners and "free speech", married gay couples will never be taken seriously as married people.

Hicup said:

Well, R v W was and has been controversial from the get-go, and only now (even after those old foggies have died off) we see a major shift in American opinion on the sanctity of life. Well that is unless you work for planned parenthood that is. Rome, the Greeks, are but two examples of just how liberal progressives destroy nations internally. Not by the sword, but by nudging ever so slightly an increasingly dependent electorate to a point where they can no longer choose to vote for what's right for the country, only what's right for them, individually.. Add in swarming the means of education by a generation of 60's hippies, throw in a choke hold of the media, both news and television and movies, and it only takes 40 years to undo a once great and proud nation of hard working people, self motivating, and ambitious into a nation of cupcake narcissists. If Rome, and Greece had TV and media, there's no way in hell they would have lasted as long as they did. To me there's no difference to what happened to them, and to what's happening to us and the west now. None! Tim-

Click to expand...

Ah the CON rewrite of history.

Nevermind there wasn't a liberal welfare state back in Classical times. A family that lost the wage earner ended up the slaves of a richer citizen. or starved to death.

The dependant electorate you cite was actually a crumbling society where the rich became uber rich and the middle class became serfs. In order to keep the serf class from open rebellion the uber rich did 'civic works' to keep idle hands busy but never allow them enough to rise out of poverty- that is the CON game, not the LIB one though even today elite CONs try and pander to their poorer followers by bashing the system that more or less keeps a massive uprising throughout the large tracts of working poor.

Couple that with an overextended Empire that cost more and more to defend with more and more invaders looking to raid the pockets of wealth in both Empires... protected by a military uncoupled from society and owing it's allegiance to their General and not the civilian government... a serf society that felt one oppressive overlord was just like the next oppressive overlord, niether worth dying for and both uncaring if the serf did die...

And both 'greece' (which really wasn't so much a nation state as a series of city states rising to power and then being drug back down by it's neighbor states) and Rome fell because the masses no longer felt the richest 1% cared about anything past becoming richer and more powerful than their rival families.

notquiteright said:

Ah the CON rewrite of history.

Nevermind there wasn't a liberal welfare state back in Classical times. A family that lost the wage earner ended up the slaves of a richer citizen. or starved to death.

The dependant electorate you cite was actually a crumbling society where the rich became uber rich and the middle class became serfs. In order to keep the serf class from open rebellion the uber rich did 'civic works' to keep idle hands busy but never allow them enough to rise out of poverty- that is the CON game, not the LIB one though even today elite CONs try and pander to their poorer followers by bashing the system that more or less keeps a massive uprising throughout the large tracts of working poor.

Couple that with an overextended Empire that cost more and more to defend with more and more invaders looking to raid the pockets of wealth in both Empires... protected by a military uncoupled from society and owing it's allegiance to their General and not the civilian government... a serf society that felt one oppressive overlord was just like the next oppressive overlord, niether worth dying for and both uncaring if the serf did die...

And both 'greece' (which really wasn't so much a nation state as a series of city states rising to power and then being drug back down by it's neighbor states) and Rome fell because the masses no longer felt the richest 1% cared about anything past becoming richer and more powerful than their rival families.

Click to expand...

Well alrighty then.. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and in fairness, a few paragraphs from either of us, doesn't do the subject any justice, but I definitely view history much different than you do.

cheers!

Tim-

Hicup said:

Well, R v W was and has been controversial from the get-go, and only now (even after those old foggies have died off) we see a major shift in American opinion on the sanctity of life. Well that is unless you work for planned parenthood that is.

Rome, the Greeks, are but two examples of just how liberal progressives destroy nations internally. Not by the sword, but by nudging ever so slightly an increasingly dependent electorate to a point where they can no longer choose to vote for what's right for the country, only what's right for them, individually.. Add in swarming the means of education by a generation of 60's hippies, throw in a choke hold of the media, both news and television and movies, and it only takes 40 years to undo a once great and proud nation of hard working people, self motivating, and ambitious into a nation of cupcake narcissists.


If Rome, and Greece had TV and media, there's no way in hell they would have lasted as long as they did.

To me there's no difference to what happened to them, and to what's happening to us and the west now. None!


Tim-

Click to expand...

roe v wade has little in common with this. At least compare something similar like loving v virginia

another baseless claim that homosexuality destroyed greece/rome even though rome 100 years before its end became a christian theocracy and had outlawed same sex behavior. Why don't you just conjure sodom/gomorrah while you're at it

you should know that ancient empires were sustained by the sword only, from beginning to end. It allowed rome to seize power, but it in turn became totally dependent on the military. The civil wars between ceasar/pompey and augustus/antony should make that clear. There was even a single year when 3 emperors were killed by their own generals. Paying the army meant conquering new territory or stealing from their own population. This is what plagued genghis khan's heirs and was a problem for roman authorities throughout.

Social customs are a low priority in an era of constant war, but i don't see how greece/rome were "liberal." Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth" and not believing in the gods. Rome had many laws related to paternal and slave master supremacy. You just focus on one aspect you associate with liberalism and dismiss the entire culture as such. You attribute a concept like religious condemnation of homosexuality they would've had no concept of to even render a decision about back then. Even the concept of a person being exclusively and permanently homosexual, they likely would've not understood

i have no idea what you mean about america's demise being due to laziness. Americans work longer hours than any other developed country and longer hours than they did in the 50s that's for sure. Hippies were not remotely the majority in the 60s and certainly not today