Scalia on sodomy

[slickpoppa]

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44524.htm

WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (above) spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex," our source reports. "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."


For reference, here is the controversial portion of Scalia's disssent:

[ QUOTE ]
Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653, 116 S.Ct. 1620.
One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning **2497 that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 2482. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. 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 schools, 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 Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that *603 culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H.R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such "discrimination" is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such "discrimination" is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000).
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 2484; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made *604 by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.


[/ QUOTE ]

He makes some good points, but the part about the law profession signing on to the "homosexual agenda" sounded like a rant more than anything else.

[Dead]

Scalia revealed his hand by making those homophobic comments.

If he wants to oppose striking down the state sodomy laws on constitutional grounds, then that's fine. He should have stuck to that. Instead, he took his opinion as an opportunity to lash out at what he feels are immoral things happening in her society. He had no business doing that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Scalia revealed his hand by making those homophobic comments.

If he wants to oppose striking down the state sodomy laws on constitutional grounds, then that's fine. He should have stuck to that. Instead, he took his opinion as an opportunity to lash out at what he feels are immoral things happening in her society. He had no business doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? I don't see anything homophobic in his dissent. Perhaps you missed this part:
[ QUOTE ]
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please highlight what was homophobic about his opinion.

[zaxx19]

Ya, im stuck rereading it like 3 times scouring it for anything remotely homophobic....

There isnt a thing.

[Dead]

Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the ruling would unleash a wave of challenges to state laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity."

[BCPVP]

And this is homophobic how...?

[Dead]

Scalia is an outright homophobe who in his dissent about striking down a Colorado Anti-Gay Legislative Act said, essentially, "There's nothing wrong with passing legislation that says that gays should be antagonized" (See Romer v. Evans).

[ripdog]

I don't see any "good points" in Scalia's dissent. He seems to be arguing that the majority of Americans don't agree with the lifestyle chosen by homosexuals, therefore it should be perfectly legal to discriminate against these individuals. Sounds like mob rule to me. I was under the impression that the purpose of the higher courts was to make sure that the minority is protected from such onslaughts.

His "nothing against homosexuals" line is laughable, and the question posed to him by the gay student was made to make a very clear point (and did). Is it anybodys business in which of his wife's orifice(s) that he chooses to insert his manhood? No, and he rightly refused to answer the question. But in doing so he exposed himself as the pathetic hypocrite that he and his ilk will always be.

Given the opportunity, I'd be willing to bet that my wife and I could break him down to an "it says so in the bible" defense eventually. We're getting pretty good at the good cop-bad cop routine when debating this with rabid homophobes.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Scalia revealed his hand by making those homophobic comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must echo was others have said here regarding Scalia and homophobia. I see nothing in Scalia's comments that would brand him homophobic.

I am equally distateful of arguments that call opponents of Zionism 'anti-semetic', or opponents of affirmative action 'racist'. Not all opposition deserves an epithet! This isn't to say that homophobes, anti-Semites and racists don't exist; it's only to claim that Scalia isn't a de facto homophobe for his dissent. Calling Scalia a homophobe is no different from calling a black person a n*****. It's meant to disqualify them from the debate before it even begins.

[ QUOTE ]
Scalia is an outright homophobe who in his dissent about striking down a Colorado Anti-Gay Legislative Act said, essentially, "There's nothing wrong with passing legislation that says that gays should be antagonized" (See Romer v. Evans).

[/ QUOTE ]

He NEVER wrote that. If you believe he 'essentially' said that, that's subjective and requires further inquiry. But please read and reread his dissent in Romer. I think you'll be hard pressed to claim he even 'essentially' said that, but I'm willing to listen.

[Dead]

"There is a problem, however, which arises when criminal sanction of homosexuality is eliminated but moral and social disapprobation of homosexuality is meant to be retained. The Court cannot be unaware of that problem; it is evident in many cities of the country, and occasionally bubbles to the surface of the news, in heated political disputes over such matters as the introduction into local schools of books teaching that homosexuality is an optional and fully acceptable "alternate life style." The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, see Record, Exh. MMM, have high disposable income, see ibid.; App. 254 (affidavit of Prof. James Hunter), and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 11] not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality. See, e.g., Jacobs, The Rhetorical Construction of Rights: The Case of the Gay Rights Movement, 1969-1991, 72 Neb. L. Rev. 723, 724 (1993) ("[T]he task of gay rights proponents is to move the center of public discourse along a continuum from the rhetoric of disapprobation, to rhetoric of tolerance, and finally to affirmation")."

Good enough for you? it is clear that Scalia is a homophobe. And I never said that he wrote what I had said in quotes. I used the word "essentially". I was paraphrasing.