Swinging Justice Kennedy Told Us 17 Years Ago That He Favored Gay Marriage

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision requiring the federal government to pay federal benefits to couples in so-called same-sex “marriages” was no surprise. After Justice Kennedy’s ridiculous, emotionally-driven opinion in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, a case that invalidated state laws against sodomy, it was only a matter of time, provided that Swinging Tony was still on the Court. Now, predictably, the Supreme Court has jumped the shark.

How nauseating was it to see moronic militant homosexual advocates trot out the predictable drivel that recognizing homosexual “marriage” is wonderful for “the children?” We all know that liberals seeking to destroy traditional institutions, trample on our liberty and confiscate our property never fail to use “the children” as a justification, but it was particularly offensive here, since it is manifest that the best thing for children is to be born to a married man and woman and to grow up in their home. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that fact. Having two “dads” or two “moms” is not the same thing, and only those who are pretending otherwise to promote a political agenda say otherwise. The relentless pursuit to force society to normalize homosexuality is all about adults, and always has been. So they need to let that talking point go.

Not that the giddy celebrants I saw doing the Happy Dance yesterday were completely wrong. I saw Christine Quinn, openly lesbian candidate for New York City mayor,  analyze the Huffington decision, the one in which the Court sent the Proposition 8 case back to California because its opponents had a lack of standing. Her take was that the Court was saying what she always says says “My marriage doesn’t harm anyone else.” Of course, that’s a vapid, imbecilic and inaccurate statement of what lack of standing means as a matter of law, and given that fact, of course, moron of the century Chris “Thrill up My Leg” Matthews agreed completely. Leaving the ignorance about legal matters aside, Ms. Quinn is correct. The Left has spent the last 50 years working to destroy the traditional family, and once many decided to not only tolerate, but embrace, immorality, with radical feminists convincing women that it was “liberating” to hit the sheets with as many guys as possible, confident that they could safely rid themselves with any inconvenient tissue mass that resulted and that marriage was “slavery,” this so-called “same-sex marriage” was inevitable. Once heterosexual couples decided it was cool to shack up and that producing bastard kids was the thing to do, where did we think we would end up? Congratulations, homosexuals. You can get “married” for what that’s worth. It’s like being able to be elected Phi Beta Kappa by sending in $20. So Ms. Quinn is right.

How appropriate was it that this whole fight was about not only forcing many to accept as normal conduct that we consider deviant but also federal benefits? At the end of the day, the Left is all about reduces everything about human life to economics, after all.

As I watched the breathless commentators praise this decision, and the rapid pace of social change, I was reminded of Joe Biden’s 2012 comment, crediting the sitcom “Will and Grace” with helping the American public “evolve” to the point that we could take the next step down the moral sewer. He’s absolutely correct, and here’s something I’ll bet you haven’t heard. Back in 1990, two guys wrote a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. It’s basically like a “Rules for Radicals” to get us where we are today accepting homosexuality. Using the popular culture was a critical component of their strategy, and they succeeded brilliantly.

As disappointing as this DOMA decision was, I have to admit that any day when I agree with both Joe Biden and militant homosexual activists is notable.


  1. You write (elsewhere on the site): “Liberals are allegic to logic, so Inevitably, when their frustration over their inability to respond to arguments becomes more than they can stand, they resort to namecalling.”

    You write (here): “Swinging Tony”

    Who’s resorting to namecalling, again?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: