Prizm News / September 6, 2018 / By Bob Vitale
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, greets Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (U.S. Senate photo via Facebook)

The Trump pick to replace Anthony Kennedy faces senators for a third day of hearings.

 

By Bob Vitale

Jim Obergefell—no, our entire LGBTQ community—might have seen a much different outcome in 2015 had the case for marriage equality been presented to a U.S. Supreme Court with Brett Kavanaugh as one of its members.

“I think I would be looking at that bench knowing that those justices don’t believe I’m equal, don’t believe that I deserve the same rights and believe our community doesn’t matter,” the Ohio native and main plaintiff in the 2015 case that brought us nationwide marriage equality said in an interview posted today at Advocate.com.

- Advertisement -

 

Kavanaugh, who is President Donald Trump’s choice to fill the latest Supreme Court vacancy, faces a third day of questioning today from members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He would replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the 2015 decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges.

Although one of Kavanaugh’s staunchest supporters is Republican Sen. and marriage equality supporter Rob Portman of Ohio, Obergefell has a much different view of the potential justice-for-life.

He told the Advocate he would have been “terrified” to take his case for marriage equality to a Supreme Court where Kavanaugh would have tipped the scales toward conservative hardliners.

“I certainly wouldn’t be sitting in that courtroom feeling optimistic like I was on June 26, 2015,” Obergefell said.

Why?

“Kavanaugh is an originalist who believes we can only take the Constitution and its meaning based on exactly how it was written at the time when it was written,” Obergfell said. “That scares me, because the constitution needs to live, breathe and change, just like our society does. I think it’s the height of hubris to assume one knows exactly what the writers of the Constitution meant at the time it was being written, or that by writing this document, their intent was to shackle the future to their 18th century understanding of the world.”

Read Obergefell’s entire interview at Advocate.com.

Bob Vitale
Bob Vitale is the editor of Prizm. A Toledo native and graduate of Toledo Public Schools, he has worked as a local government and politics reporter for The Columbus Dispatch, as a Washington correspondent for Thomson Newspapers and as editor-in-chief for Outlook Ohio. He has a bachelor's degree in journalism and political science from Ball State University and a master's degree in public affairs reporting from the University of Illinois-Springfield. Contact: BobVitale@prizmnews.com