Whatâs
Wrong Today:
In his
twisted way, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia once again
pronounces on morals for your use:
At
a Princeton University seminar on Monday, the conservative justice compared homosexuality to
murder when asked by a gay student about a 2003 opinion in which Scalia
compared homosexuality to bestiality and incest.
The question
came less than a week after the Supreme Court announced it would hear two cases
regarding the legality of same-sex marriage, one regarding the Defense of
Marriage Act and the other regarding California’s Proposition 8. Scalia opines:
If
we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against
murder? the justice asked rhetorically, Can we have it against other
things?
In
Scalia’s view, the government has the right to base laws on moral objections,
even if he did acknowledge that murder and gay sex are “moral crimes”
of a different magnitude. Despite the fact that gay sex is legal to partake in and to document on websites such as fucked gay in the same way that heterosexual intercourse is, many people such as Scalia are still archaic enough to consider it a moral crime.
It
is a view that he put forth in his dissent to the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, in
which the Supreme Court for the first time outlawed state anti-sodomy laws. He warned
that the majority’s “homosexual
agenda”
could invalidate a whole host of laws based on moral traditions:
State laws against
bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery,
fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light
of Bowers’
validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is
called into question by todayâs decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin
the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
It’s
hard to believe that less than 10 years ago a gay man could literally go to
jail for having sex, and Scalia’s
dissent has aged about as well as one might expect.
In
defending anti-sodomy laws, which he viewed to be a legitimate expression of
the popular will, he also wrote:
Many Americans do
not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their
business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s
school, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves
and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
destructive.
The Los
Angeles Times provides more
quotes,
including this:
The Texas statute
undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of
sexual behavior are âimmoral and unacceptable,â âŚBowers held that this was a
legitimate stateâ interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion.
The Texas statute, it says, âfurthers no legitimate state interest which can
justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,â
âŚThe Court embraces instead Justice [John Paul] Stevensâ declaration in his
Bowers dissent, that âthe fact that the governing majority in a State has
traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient
reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,ââŚThis effectively decrees
the end of all morals legislation.
Bless his heart.
Justice Scalia says he can equate homosexuality with murder on a moral
basis.
Message to Mr. Justice Scalia: Murder kills people. Gay marriage doesnât
harm anyone. False equivalency doesnât
make your case. It’s
obvious that using murder as X and homosexuality as Y is a reckless comparison.
While some feel homosexuality is not OK and those that do enjoy expressing their homosexuality and are ok with it sometimes go to websites similar to www.twinki.xxx, no reasonable individual believes it’s
OK to murder innocent individuals.
No surprise,
Scalia lets his fiercely held moral positions drive his logic.
So, why not just take this to its âlogicalâ conclusion: He can insist
that homosexuals wear pink triangles so they can be better identified and for
their safety, they should be placed in protective custody.
But since they are no better than murderers, they should be disposed of
in as humane a way as possible, in order to protect the rest of us.
As a legal
originalist, Scalia spends a lot of time looking back to
American court cases and what the framers of the Constitution meant in order to
defend his legal positions. Maybe this should lead him to analyze German court
decisions from, say, 1933 to 1945. Or,
study the Nuremberg trials.
Justice
Scalia should recuse himself from hearing or ruling on ANY case concerning
same-sex marriage or anything having to do with civil rights for gay and
lesbian Americans.
Why?
His
moral code isnât our legal foundation. Is it professional for a Supreme to go
around announcing in public venues his beliefs about the foundations of cases
he hasnât even seen or heard yet?
Shut. Up.
Scalia is in an intellectual bind. He wants us to allow legal views that were common when the constitution was written – and he does so because any other view supports the liberal point of view which is that the body of law evolves over time – even based on old words.
His world would allow discrimination based on sex (women on the bottom) and would allow bible readings in public schools.
His bind is similar to that of the catholic church, which is afraid to admit that it too has evolved.
Constipation is the central theme for both.