News,  Politics

Ryan Anderson says Kennedy may rule against redefining marriage

Ryan Anderson went on Bill Bennet’s radio program today and said that he believes Kennedy may rule against redefining marriage (listen above). In Anderson’s own words:

I went in thinking that Kennedy might have already made up his mind and Kennedy might be inclined to strike down these laws. I came out thinking Kennedy hasn’t made up his mind. And there’s a good chance that Kennedy’s going to be inclined to uphold the male-female marriage definition.

I would like to let myself believe that Anderson is correct, but I am still very skeptical. Yes, Kennedy asked some tough questions. But Kennedy has written two landmark opinions in favor of gay rights–Lawrence (2003) and Windsor (2013). In the latter case, he specifically attributed opposition to gay marriage to irrational animus. I just don’t see how he walks that back at this point. Even though he asked tough questions in oral arguments, I’m skeptical that he will now overturn his gay rights legacy and nullify precedents that he himself wrote.

Again, I hope I’m wrong about this. Nothing would make me happier than for Anderson to be right!


  • Lynn B.

    This recording was a good reminded that our God is Sovereign and not only does He already know the outcome He is in complete control and has ordained the outcome to bring about both His purposes in the big picture and prophecy and for the sanctification of His chosen people the Bride of Christ.

  • Ken Temple

    I hope Anderson is right; but I can see why you are doubtful.

    We need to be ready. They are coming for the churches next to try and force us to agree with them.

    They also seem to want to silence evangelism especially, and preaching, “repent”! and “there is a hell”, etc.

  • Ted Weis (@TedWeis)

    You ask tough questions to maintain credibility, making it appear that these decisions are excruciatingly complex and difficult. But for progressives, these decisions are actually very easy. I’ll be shocked if Kennedy walks back his earlier rulings.

  • James Bradshaw

    Question: do heterosexual couples who remain entirely childless – by choice or otherwise -have any benefit for society beyond their own?

    • Brian Sanders

      James: from Eph. 5 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

    • Anthony

      Yes. Assuming they abide by the norms of marriage (monogamous and faithful) they will be a model for other couples to try and emulate. Assuming faithfulness, the man will not produce children outside said marriage, thus reducing single parenthood.

      • James Bradshaw

        Anthony, in addition to what you noted, how about these:
        1. Marriage partnerships help create both financial and emotional protections in the case of a life event such as illness or unemployment that are not as readily available from mere friendships
        2. Studies show that married people are healthier and happier than their perpetually single counterparts
        3. Marriage fosters daily sacrifices that build character and increase the likelihood that people will turn around and give back to their communities

        Now, explain to me what the public interest is in denying these benefits to gay couples.

  • Sam Dilton

    Really, James, what is in the public interest in denying any couple any of these benefits. Could you define what is a ‘couple’ for me?

    • James Bradshaw

      Sam, I would distinguish a couple in the same way a heterosexual man distinguishes his wife from every other woman in the world.
      That is unless you wish to suggest that his wife has no particular value or difference other than that she may bear him children?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.