For many years, Justice Kennedy, a putative Catholic appointed by President Reagan when the Senate sunk Justice Bork’s nomination, has been pimping for the Culture of Death whether it be “gay marriage” or infanticide. From my four volume treatise, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed, here are some excerpts from his opinions starting with his opinion legalizing sodomy.
§17.89 Lawrence v. Texas: Sodomy legalized
Oxford Companion: [T]he Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned its previous holding in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) . . . declaring unconstitutional a state ‘anti‐sodomy’ law that sought to regulate private sexual behavior by consenting adults.
Coroner: In Lawrence, Kennedy for the majority decriminalized sodomy writing:
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
Coroner: That’s quite a paean to anal and oral sex. For Justice Scalia, dissenting, the passage reminded him of the “mystery passage” in Planned Parenthood v. Casey where the court per Kennedy, Souter, and O’Conner reaffirmed the barbarous Roe. v. Wade.
Mr. J. Scalia: And if the Court in is referring not to the holding of [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, (“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”): That “casts some doubt” upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law.
Coroner: The “mystery of life” passage sounds a lot like what travelers used to hear in airports from Hare Krishnas. But more from Mr. J. Scalia’s rhetorical arsenal:
Mr. J. Scalia: [Lawrence] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” . . . ; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution” . . . Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
Coroner: That hope was just this week dashed when Kennedy, repudiating his word in Lawrence, delivered the coup-de-grace. For the Scalia dissenting opinion, please see Gay Marriage: A Feigned Case and a Monumental Dissent on the Merits by Scalia and Thomas, JJ.
With all his talk on the “mystery of life” blah, blah, Kennedy has only promoted the anti-life propositions of abortion, which takes life, and homosexual “marriage” which can never produce life, but, as Prof. Charles Rice put it, only “excrement”.