Quantcast

Did Justice Kennedy Just Compare Homosexual 'Marriage' Decision to Nazism?

SupremeCourtMarriageIn an op-ed for the New York Times, the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson wrote that the government should allow a religious accommodation for people who object to homosexual “marriage” on those grounds.

The government could have avoided the Kim Davis affair had Kentucky protected her religious freedom in this way. Her objections didn’t prevent anyone else in the office from issuing “marriage” licenses.

Christians and others who don’t want to promote the sin of homosexuality must be diligent in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s declaration that two men have a constitutional right to “marry.” From moral relativism flows many things, including comments like Justice Anthony Kennedy’s at Harvard Law School.

Someone asked him whether government officials could refuse to recognize the high court’s decision. Here’s what he said:

Kennedy replied by noting that there were very few who resigned in Germany rather than obey Nazi directives, stating that he respects the few who follow their convictions.

“How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich? Three,” he stated. “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong, in order to make a point.”

But the justice said that he feels civil magistrates must follow the law and hesitated to endorse the concept of rejecting Supreme Court opinion.

“[T]he rule of law is that, as a public official and performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law,” he stated. “It’s difficult sometimes to see whether or not what you’re doing is transgressing your own personal philosophies; this requires considerable introspection. It’s a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves.”

Justice Kennedy cited Nazism in response to questions about American magistrates with religious objections to promoting homosexuality. They should be like those “very few” who resigned rather than obey Adolph Hitler’s orders. 

Ironically, Justice Kennedy’s comment makes the government look bad. As judges under Nazism were bound to follow fascist laws, American magistrates are bound to follow the government’s religious freedom-infringing directives.

So in Justice Kennedy’s view, government employees must leave their religious freedom at home, or else find another job. Anderson noted in his op-ed that North Carolina protects government employees who object to promoting homosexuality. Employees with no such objections can still perform related job functions. Other states should follow suit.

Photo credit: Matt Popovich (Creative Commons) – Public Domain

Check Also

Star Parker: Historic Significance of Georgia Senate Contests

There is no word more overused in political life than “historic.” But considering the runoff …

One comment

  1. You are continuing to maintain a morally indefensible position: if a person’s wages are paid by taxpayer money, that person — regardless of his or her personal beliefs — is morally obligated to serve all taxpayers equally. Resignation is the *only* moral alternative. This, of course, is not true if the person’s income is in no way tainted by government (taxpayer) funds. If you continue to maintain that a government employee’s religious freedom must take precedence, you will ultimately lose both the battle and the war.