Kennedy speaks about himself in the third person? Nah, you're just citing a news article instead of the primary source. Try again and go to the primary source. I'll help u out, you can read it here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
I'll also save you the time if you like: you are extremely incorrect in saying your Reagan appointed (liberal activist?!?) judge recognized they couldn't do it but wanted to anyways. In fact he said the opposite, not only could they do it but they are OBLIGATED by the Constitution to do it. Here is a direct quote from the primary source. Feel free to read for yourself and double check that I am correct.
"...when the rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress by the courts"...The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right....An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. "
The quote was from Justice Kennedy, you didn't like it so it must be BS right?
You continue to ignore how the courts have trampled over the will of the people. California voted gay marriage down in Nov 2008, you should know that "professor" . In 2013 the courts decided to impose their will on the people. You must be aware of that too.
"Despite what many in the media claim, the American people do not support same-sex marriage. Every time they have voted on marriage—32 states overall—they have voted to preserve traditional marriage.
[
See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]
Just this week, North Carolina became the 31st state in the country to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They did so with 61 percent of the vote, despite the claim of gay advocates and liberal bloggers that the state was poised to deliver a big upset. An overwhelming majority said they wanted to prevent activist judges and politicians like President Obama from redefining marriage. Our victory was so impressive that the prominent Democratic Public Policy Polling company said this: "Hate to say it, but I don't believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there's a vote it doesn't back it up."
North Carolina isn't the only swing state with a marriage amendment. Voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado have enacted similar legislation. Now, because of President Obama, those laws are at risk of being overturned. The Obama administration has refused to defend in federal court the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the legal framework that allows a state to control its definition of marriage and avoid having to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. If the act is overturned, it's only a matter of time before marriage is redefined for the entire country.
[Read the U.S. News debate: Should Gay Marriage be Legal Nationwide?]
President Obama is about to feel the wrath of an engaged nation. God is the author of marriage; government merely recognizes what God created. The vast majority of voters in this country (62 percent, according to a national survey for the Alliance Defense Fund) believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Their belief is heavily rooted in their faith traditions. In 2008, candidate Obama acknowledged that, as a Christian, "God's in the mix" when it comes to marriage. With his announcement this week, he has kicked people of faith in the gut and suggested they should abandon what God has told them and what every civilization since the dawn of mankind has known is best for society.
Truth doesn't "evolve" for the sake of political expediency. "
Spin this, tell me how an MSNBC poll of 400 people is more accurate than actual voting by the people in state after state.
