Scalia Ridicules Court Gay Sex Ruling

[adios]

I don't agree with Scalia at all. Andy, I stand corrected about what I stated earlier about Scalia not being included with Helms and Lott. I'm very disappointed with Scalia's position on this. I realize that it's being spun as a constitutional issue about the dividing line between state and federal government sovereignty if you will but IMO it's really about something else. That something else is religous beliefs, intolerance and fear. I just think about people I know and have known that are gay and they are far, far away from criminals.

Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling

Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling
Thu Oct 23, 9:32 PM ET


By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility.


AP Photo



The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter."

Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere.

Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the gay sex case that was longer than the ruling itself.

On Thursday, Scalia said judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court, throw over the original meaning of the Constitution when it suits them.

"Most of today's experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order," Scalia told a gathering of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

"All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text."

Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution.

The 50-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute is a private conservative education organization that sponsors lectures and conferences and scholarships. The group says its mission is to, "enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise (news - web sites) and Judeo-Christian moral standards."

ISI draws much of its funding from conservative foundations, including three controlled by or associated with billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, a vehement critic of former President Clinton (news - web sites).

Scalia spoke after standing with some 800 others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear a case testing the constitutionality of the current version of the pledge as it is recited in public schools and that Scalia will not take part.

Scalia apparently sidelined himself because of remarks he made earlier this year critical of a lower court ruling in the case. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) had found the pledge was unconstitutional in public school classroom because of the phrase, "one nation, under God."

The Supreme Court could decide to strip the words "under God" from the patriotic oath or rule that the mention of God does not violate the notion of separation of church and state.

[Cyrus]

"The 50-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute's mission is to enhance the rising generation's knowledge of ... limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and Judeo-Christian moral standards."

Kinda gives the game away that last 'un.

[MMMMMM]

My opinion is that consensual sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be illegal between consenting adults. However maybe the states which still have those laws on the books should have had referendums to remove those laws rather than the federal government stepping in. The federal government keeps expanding its powers (sigh). If this particular matter is not really in the purview of federal law or the Constitution, perhaps we should be hesitant to take the quickest, easiest way out. The trouble and expense of having state-by-state referendums might be worth it if that preserves Constitutional integrity and prevents further needlesss expansion of federal powers. I rather doubt any states would keep such laws on the books were a referendum to take place, but it would also be interesting (!;-)) to see which states, if any, might vote to keep such laws.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The federal government has already ignored the Constitution at least on the subject of marriage.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Muslims are permitted 4 wives. Originally Mormons were permitted multiple wives. Not only are there laws on the books prohibiting polygamy, but Utah was denied statehood until it outlawed the practice.

That sure sounds to me like they're "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[elwoodblues]

Not all states have the ability to do referenda.

[elwoodblues]

Let's not forget DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Under what theory did Congress have the power to pass that legislation??

I guess we all want small government when we disagree with the government, and large government when we agree...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To me the marriage issue is cut and dried. The government has no right to tell a church who it can or cannot marry.

In the case of civil marriage, performed by a government agent, marriage is simply a contract. Thus the government cannot deny the right to contract based upon gender.

I also do not believe that the government has any business re-defining marriage by edict. Thus the solution in civil cases is to create a separately defined civil union in which inhere all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but just with a simple title. Thus there will no longer exists civil marriage. "Marriage" will be a religios-based institution, "Civil Union" will be government based. Each will look identical to the law.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I for one do not believe in legislation by referendum. The US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional federal republic.

[MMMMMM]

Ok, you and elwood raised points I hadn't considered. So substitute state legislation instead of referendum in my post, then, if need be.

[ACPlayer]

I did not follow this issue very closely when the rulings were made.

Was the fed govt involved in making it illegal? I thought is was a supreme court ruling. I assume Ashcroft filed an amicus brief.