Mark Steyn rips Anthony Kennedy for ‘pathetic,’ ‘immature’ opinion in DOMA ruling [AUDIO]

Jeff Poor Media Reporter
Font Size:

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rules the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, with the historical swing vote on the panel, Anthony Kennedy, siding with the majority.

In his opinion, Kennedy was particularly harsh on DOMA proponents, suggesting they were supporting a law that was discriminatory on various levels.

That opinion drew the wrath of National Review columnist Mark Steyn. On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Thursday, Steyn criticized Kennedy’s opinion, calling it “pathetic” and “immature” for not acknowledging the arguments from the other side.

“To be honest, you know, the gay marriage issue, I think, is — if the people want gay marriage I think it’s for their legislators to vote for it as has been done everywhere else,” Steyn said. “It’s been done in Belgium and the Netherlands and Denmark. The House of Commons at Westminster voted for gay marriage under a Conservative government a few weeks ago. I think if the people’s representatives wish to do that, that’s one thing. When Anthony Kennedy wishes to do it, when ‘Emperor Anthony’ is the supreme arbiter of all things for 300 million people I think that’s pathetic. And I don’t think — and it’s particularly pathetic when you read his opinion in this case, which basically imputes animus to anyone who disagrees with him. It’s the most immature opinion. It doesn’t even take on arguments about DOMA. It basically says the guys who did it were motivated only by an antipathy to gay people.”

Steyn, the author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” went on to liken the Supreme Court’s role in the U.S. government to a monarchy in which the king is replaced with nine judges.

“Actually, this is a very worrying precedent, because effectively, I mean, I don’t like that the fetish-ization of judges,” he continued. “I don’t want an absolute monarchy where you replace the king with nine robed judges and you pretend somehow are any more objective than just having you know, an absolute monarch. But if you’re going to have an absolute monarchy, it’s particularly unhealthy to have an absolute monarchy that doesn’t even address arguments but simply says, ‘We declare disagreement with us unacceptable and biased and bigoted’ because they can do that not just with gay marriage. They could do it with the JFK Airport parking lot expansion bill. They could do that with every single thing that comes up on their panel.”

Follow Jeff on Twitter