In the 1990 Marquette yearbook, Scott Walker said, "I really think there’s a reason why God put all these political thoughts in my head." (MacGillis, The New Republic)
That's who Scott Walker is in a sentence: God tells him what to do, perhaps guiding the Koch brothers and other billionaires to shower Walker with $10s of millions to accomplish God's bidding.
Scott Walker is against a women's right to choose, including in cases of rape and incest. Naturally, Walker who wants to and cannot persuade women what to do with their bodies wants to outlaw abortion.
Walker, who says God guides him in his political affairs, (Rothschild, The Progressive; MacGillis, The New Republic) also has his own ideas on the correct form of marriage for fellow Americans.
Instead of allowing Wisconsin same-sex couples to marry and live their lives in pursuit of happiness which would be the result if Scott Walker stepped aside of Americans' private lives and accepted the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (see Mal Contends, Judge Richard Posner on "Mindless Tradition" and "Bigotry"), Scott Walker in Walker v. Wolf is taking his fight against same-sex marriage all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One thing Scott Walker in his mindless bigotry and marriage equality advocates do agree on.
The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court is: "Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from defining and recognizing marriage as only the legal union between one man and one woman," as Scott Walker's brief before the Court reads.
Wisconsin marriage advocates formulate the question more precisely as follows:
1. Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it treats same-sex and different-sex couples unequally with respect to marriage.
2. Whether a state violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and refuses to recognize same-sex couples’ lawful, out-of-state marriages.
How is the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Equal Protection Clause?
Reading Kennedy's words in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the language is encouraging:
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions
into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the state is
not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives
and existence, outside the home, where the state should not be a
dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty
presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief,
expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves
liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent
The question before the Court is the validity of a
Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct." (NYT, June 27, 2003)
It is difficult to contemplate Justice Kennedy swimming against the tide of history and coming to the conclusion that the state should be allowed to discriminate against two persons of the same sex and prevent our fellows from getting married when even Scott Walker and anti-marriage advocates can come up with literally no argument to deny same-sex couples the liberty to marry beyond what Judge Posner referred to as "mindless tradition."
Like most Americans we can only work on behalf of the liberty of our fellow citizens as Scott Walker and a diminishing number of self-styled advocates of God work against liberty and equality.