a level english literature essay titles what should i include in a cover letter cialis north hartland a business plan competiotion how can i get cialis in australia my philosophy of education essay sex discrimination essay enter site https://tffa.org/businessplan/essay-mahatma-gandhi-marathi/70/ http://v-nep.org/classroom/papaer-work/04/ click dissertation synthse mthode example thesis for research paper business school application essay examples red natural viagra non traditional student essays for going into education https://www.cen.edu/notice/ethical-considerations-for-dissertation/24/ best cdna essay kit viagra brownville go site parts of an essay thesis propecia dht is prednisone a glucocorticoid https://www.cei.utah.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/15/files/2013/?speech=essay-about-discrimination-gender https://bigsurlandtrust.org/care/prednisone-hair-loss/20/ business research paper service https://bigsurlandtrust.org/care/accutane-for-sale/20/ corporate law attorney resume viagra free belgium uk essay writers get link see url “Nothing Against Homosexuals” Comment Was Fabricated

Much ado is being made over Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. What a hateful statement to make, and CNN and the Associated Press picked up on it without delay.

The problem is that Justice Scalia was taken out of context. Let’s compare what the New York Times said about Scalia’s comments:

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and took the unusual step of reading it aloud from the bench this morning, saying “the court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” while adding that he personally has “nothing against homosexuals.”

With what was actually said:

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 18; 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 by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

Just as I commented some days ago, the battle over homosexuality is being taken out of the public square (“normal democratic means”) and into the courts. It is one more instance of judicial activism gone too far for political purposes:

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning 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 14. 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 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. ยง654(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 (2000).

That’s what Scalia has a problem with. But hey, it seems as if sticking it to conservatives for political gain is the order of the day.

Scroll down today’s Best of the Web for more on the Dowdification of Justice Scalia.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.