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!
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.
why trust the Judiciary?
these are the same guys that are putting laws to accuse men of rape just because of the way a woman feels and not because they were actually raped…
these are the same guys that think it is fine to murder unborn kids…
these are the same people that think men do not matter to society with their anti male rulings…
I can’t really see another thread to post this on so I’ll throw it out here:
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
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.
Question: do heterosexual couples who remain entirely childless – by choice or otherwise -have any benefit for society beyond their own?
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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?