Supreme Justice Scalia: Constitution Doesn't Protect Gay Americans

There are 20 comments on the EDGEptown.com News Feed story from Sep 20, 2010, titled Supreme Justice Scalia: Constitution Doesn't Protect Gay Americans. In it, EDGEptown.com News Feed reports that:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a law school audience that the Constitution does not outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGEptown.com News Feed.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Raising money for Prop H8!”

Since: Feb 09

Germany

#1 Sep 20, 2010
And if we elect a Republican to the White House we will get more Supreme Court justices like him.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
Not duped

Grove City, PA

#2 Sep 20, 2010
How refreshing. A judge who recognizes what any Constitutionally literate American without a gay agenda recognizes.
Sir Andrew

United States

#3 Sep 20, 2010
Spay or neuter your republicans.

“ALREADY LEGALLY MARRIED AND ”

Since: Jul 09

YOU CAN'T DO SH@T ABOUT IT!!!

#4 Sep 20, 2010
So, we aren't protected under the Constitution because of our sexual orientation?

We are however protected because we are FRUCKING AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WHO WE MARRY OR SLEEP WITH IS TRULY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS!!!!

“I'm here to make friends, etc.”

Since: Sep 10

Fernandina Beach, Florida

#5 Sep 20, 2010
So I guess Scalia would be for slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriages if the majority of people still wanted it.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#6 Sep 20, 2010
Scilia is well with in his rights to not endorse homo sex. But he has only 1/9th of the right to stop it at the supreme Court.

However Thomas's wife should not be involved in the T party nor the Republican nor the Democratic. It always been a right that went with appointments to permanent office.

I think they should both be impeached.

And yes they can be.
Christine

United States

#7 Sep 20, 2010
John Crews wrote:
So I guess Scalia would be for slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriages if the majority of people still wanted it.
He's a devout Catholic, so the answer is no.

Antonin is a good guy.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#8 Sep 20, 2010
So was Father Coughlin. He wasn't a "good guy" and neither is Tony Scalia.
Christine wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a devout Catholic, so the answer is no.
Antonin is a good guy.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#9 Sep 20, 2010
For Scalia or any Supreme Court Justice to interpret "citizens of the United States", "all persons", and "any person" as not explicit enough to qualify for extending the protections of the Fourteen Amendment to everyone, is something that should be cause for his impeachment. Justice Scalia needs to dust off a copy of that old constitution he gets so warm and fuzzy over and actually read it for a change:

Amendment 14, Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It does not say...(No State shall) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws except...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10 Sep 20, 2010
Not duped wrote:
How refreshing. A judge who recognizes what any Constitutionally literate American without a gay agenda recognizes.
Hey "duped"... what part of "all persons" or "nor deny to any persons" are you having trouble reading?

Scalia can argue until the cows come home that the 14th Amendment was only meant to apply to the newly freed slaves in particular and African Americans in general.

But it doesn't SAY that.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship for the first time in the Constitution, and requires that the law applies equally to ALL citizens, not denying equal protection or due process to ANY persons.

It doesn't limit that definition or protection to former slaves or blacks. It's open to ALL. If they had intended it to mean only blacks, why didn't they expressly state it?

The originalist hides behind an idea that is ultimately indefensible. To which "founders" should we look for definitional guidance? The drafters? The signers? Members of congress? Maybe we should look to the ratifiers in the states, since they were the ones to approve the document? How many thousands of individuals comprise "the founders?"

Our "founders" drafted and approved the First Amendment and within 10 years many of these same people promptly passed a law making it a crime to criticize government officials (The Sedition Act of 1798). Who can deny that many of the founders thought the First Amendment didn't include the right to criticize the president?

Quit relying on dead people who can't speak to a 21st Century argument. The Founders gave us a document that suits our purposes just fine; all we need to do is follow it. Scalia is the Vatican's vote on the Supreme Court; he's not going to recognize the rights of people he thinks should be subject to criminal sanction for intimate personal relations. Anyone please tell me ONE vote of Scalia's that directly contradicts Vatican teaching.

Ensure the equal protections and due process of the law TO ALL PERSONS. ALL means ALL.

“I'm here to make friends, etc.”

Since: Sep 10

Fernandina Beach, Florida

#11 Sep 20, 2010
Christine wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a devout Catholic, so the answer is no.
Antonin is a good guy.
How can one be a good person and think it's okay to discriminate against women and gays? People are entitled to their religious beliefs but I don't feel that gives them the right to discriminate and discrimination is immoral anyway.
Christian

Grove City, PA

#13 Sep 20, 2010
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey "duped"... what part of "all persons" or "nor deny to any persons" are you having trouble reading?
Scalia can argue until the cows come home that the 14th Amendment was only meant to apply to the newly freed slaves in particular and African Americans in general.
But it doesn't SAY that.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship for the first time in the Constitution, and requires that the law applies equally to ALL citizens, not denying equal protection or due process to ANY persons.
It doesn't limit that definition or protection to former slaves or blacks. It's open to ALL. If they had intended it to mean only blacks, why didn't they expressly state it?
The originalist hides behind an idea that is ultimately indefensible. To which "founders" should we look for definitional guidance? The drafters? The signers? Members of congress? Maybe we should look to the ratifiers in the states, since they were the ones to approve the document? How many thousands of individuals comprise "the founders?"
Our "founders" drafted and approved the First Amendment and within 10 years many of these same people promptly passed a law making it a crime to criticize government officials (The Sedition Act of 1798). Who can deny that many of the founders thought the First Amendment didn't include the right to criticize the president?
Quit relying on dead people who can't speak to a 21st Century argument. The Founders gave us a document that suits our purposes just fine; all we need to do is follow it. Scalia is the Vatican's vote on the Supreme Court; he's not going to recognize the rights of people he thinks should be subject to criminal sanction for intimate personal relations. Anyone please tell me ONE vote of Scalia's that directly contradicts Vatican teaching.
Ensure the equal protections and due process of the law TO ALL PERSONS. ALL means ALL.
Jerald, it means that no one can throw you in jail or take away your property without due process of the law being followed to determine that there is good reason to throw you in jail or take away your property. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing a very, very long-standing definition of marriage. Yes, due processed meant that blacks couldn't be jailed or deprived of their property. It also means gays can't be jailed or deprived of their property without a court making a determination, according to the law, that they deserve for that to happen. Due process has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. Why would it have anything to do with "same-sex marriage."

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14 Sep 20, 2010
Christian wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerald, it means that no one can throw you in jail or take away your property without due process of the law being followed to determine that there is good reason to throw you in jail or take away your property. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing a very, very long-standing definition of marriage. Yes, due processed meant that blacks couldn't be jailed or deprived of their property. It also means gays can't be jailed or deprived of their property without a court making a determination, according to the law, that they deserve for that to happen. Due process has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. Why would it have anything to do with "same-sex marriage."
Your focus only on the due process clause restricts your understanding.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage." The question about the extension of CIVIL marriage is whether the government can deny the EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF THE LAW (that's the operative clause of the 14th Amendment here) to someone seeking to marry someone else solely on the basis of the gender of one partner relative to the other.

Gay people can marry in every state in the union. Gay COUPLES can marry in every state in the union, provided that one of the gay persons is male and the other female. In the five states and the District of Columbia where civil marriage is open to all couples regardless of gender, you won't find that they are issuing "gay marriage" certificates. They are issuing CIVIL marriage certificates, just like for opposite-sex couples.

What is the rational basis for denying CIVIL marriage based on the gender of one of the partners? Absent at least a rational basis (and there is none), the equal protection of the law would require that since a woman can marry a man, then a man should be able to do the same thing.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Sep 20, 2010
Not duped wrote:
How refreshing. A judge who recognizes what any Constitutionally literate American without a gay agenda recognizes.
Yet anyone could pick apart his "logic" in a few expertly deployed paragraphs.

It boggles the mind that *a heterosexual literally* has this or that right and BEING BORN GAY automatically and literally *ERASES* those rights; suddenly, out of the deep blue sky, those rights are *absent* and you are told you can do nothing but *mimic* the heterosexual "lifestyle" or go along with it.

Scalia is 100% wrong, and if he's right, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. But ya know what?

Maybe we should try living in that America, and see how long America lasts before we're shooting each other's heads off in the streets. How about it? Just randomly *tell people* they have no rights for reasons COMPLETELY beyond their control.

Or else take it from the rest of the supreme court justices, who have overruled his little anti-gay crusade in decision after decision, including Lawrence v. Texas -- in which Scalia's hysterically anti-gay hatred, captured in a rant that went down with his minority opinion, was committed to history for all to see.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Sep 20, 2010
RnL_4EVR_MARRIED wrote:
So, we aren't protected under the Constitution because of our sexual orientation?
We are however protected because we are FRUCKING AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WHO WE MARRY OR SLEEP WITH IS TRULY NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS!!!!
I just got done saying this to an idiot in this thread, an actual honest-to-good idiot. By *MAGIC*, orientation *DISQUALIFIES* you from protection?

That's literally not America. That is the exact equivalent of AmeriKKKa. Literally. Actually, truly, and literally. It is literally saying, "Some people are more equal than others."

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Sep 20, 2010
pauline 2 wrote:
Scilia is well with in his rights to not endorse homo sex. But he has only 1/9th of the right to stop it at the supreme Court.
However Thomas's wife should not be involved in the T party nor the Republican nor the Democratic. It always been a right that went with appointments to permanent office.
I think they should both be impeached.
And yes they can be.
Although (for lack of a better way to say it) your "allegiances are unclear," your post and your logic point the way to impeaching Scalia, and to me, the reasons for THAT have always been so glaring and shining that a child could identify them.

You take an oath, you begin administering an office, and you are a judge. OH, WAIT, that means: IMPARTIAL! That means you judge each case before you on its merits,

NOT ON YOUR PRECONCEIVED IDEA THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS,

which is what Scalia is doing.

Grounds for impeachment? Instant.

Will it happen? Nope.

It would take a tremendous, prolonged and savage fight and people wouldn't stick with it long enough, nor have the temerity and passion to pull it off. He could ABSOLUTELY be impeached but the effort required makes the enterprise a "fail" before it's even begun, because people simply wouldn't be committed enough to making it happen.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Sep 20, 2010
Christine wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a devout Catholic, so the answer is no.
Antonin is a good guy.
This actually makes him worse. The previous poster offered an "out" by which Scalia could generally be regarded as a complete, utter, card-carrying goddamn idiot. Instead, your post makes it sound as if his anti-gay prejudice *is a singular phenomenon within his weltanschauung*, a hatred which specifically targets gays.

I am not saying YOU said so; I am merely pointing out that *logic can infer this* from the previous post followed by yours. Of course, anyone with an IQ realizes none of us can speak for Scalia. This was a given.

Unfortunately, Scalia has a great "talent" for speaking for himself in ways that sound a little too anti-American for my taste.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Sep 20, 2010
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
For Scalia or any Supreme Court Justice to interpret "citizens of the United States", "all persons", and "any person" as not explicit enough to qualify for extending the protections of the Fourteen Amendment to everyone, is something that should be cause for his impeachment. Justice Scalia needs to dust off a copy of that old constitution he gets so warm and fuzzy over and actually read it for a change:
Amendment 14, Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It does not say...(No State shall) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws except...
This is why my concern for these issues wanes habitually. Grounds for impeachment; will it happen? IT COULD AND IT WON'T. People don't have the damn guts to make a huge case out of this and then extend the effort it would take, an enormous effort, to get this done. I mean, we're talking (by way of example; simply for example) about an effort that would involve people *camping out* in Washington and making a NATIONAL NUISANCE of themselves, risking arrest (?) and prolonging a protest into WEEKS AND MONTHS -- or, that's my guess. An enormous effort which would get noticed if people committed to it.

Many can't. Their lives and their economics don't allow it. But -- but!-- I cited only one example of how it could play out.

It's simply boring and discouraging and who cares anymore when what *could* happen doesn't. I wouldn't even recommend impeachment of Scalia as a "first line of offense"; I think there are much, much better Plan B's if the supreme court rules against gay marriage. I have a funny feeling *none of them are going to take place*, and that the reality of gay marriage *is going to be* a long time coming.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Sep 20, 2010
Christian wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerald, it means that no one can throw you in jail or take away your property without due process of the law being followed to determine that there is good reason to throw you in jail or take away your property. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing a very, very long-standing definition of marriage.
But as Jerald points out, your *reason* for clinging to that "long-standing definition" is lacking. Seriously. I'm waiting for the person who's gonna prove that WHEN GAY COUPLES MARRY, HOUSES BURN DOWN. Provide a direct correlation, and you've got a reason to restrict gay marriage *for safety reasons*. The biggest lie in anti-gay sentiment against marriage is that there *is no reason* to deprive gay couples. No reason makes sense and no reason holds water. Why are rational reviews of these policies (to use an overarching term) again and again and again coming to the conclusion that there is no *rational* basis for denying gay couples marriage?
Christian wrote:
Yes, due processed meant that blacks couldn't be jailed or deprived of their property. It also means gays can't be jailed or deprived of their property without a court making a determination, according to the law, that they deserve for that to happen. Due process has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. Why would it have anything to do with "same-sex marriage."
Because you make the mistake of *separating the two* which is the WHOLE POINT that the argument defeats, but you do it as if you're "innocently asking" when I could innocently ask the same question: Why the vote for men but not for women? That was reality for a long, long time. Why marriage for two people of THESE colors but not of THOSE colors? That was reality for a long, long time.

It boggles the mind that few of you (not all; some admit it) WON'T admit that this is prejudice, pure and simple; fear, pure and simple; insecurity and uncertainty, pure and simple. What public policy is *benefitting* from *prohibiting* these marriages? Go talk to a racist, a KKK member, and he's got REASONS for believing blacks and whites MUST be separated, and blacks kept subordinate to whites.

You know under what circumstances you'd have an argument?(And some of the pro-gay disagree with me.) If marriage had *NO GOVERNMENTAL, SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC RIGHTS ATTACHED THERETO*, you could make a case. Strip marriage of its 1000+ rights, rights that benefit couples *economically and monetarily* as well as in numerous other ways, and you have a case. Until then, if John was BORN GAY (which is how it happens) and if he falls in love and wants to commit to JEFF, they have no recourse according to *you* thanks to factors *completely beyond* their control and should not be raising two kids in a household where they don't have the same RIGHTS a heterosexual would. Period. What is so difficult about this and what batshit obsession in the minds of the anti-gay is so fond of guaranteeing that *we'll all fight to the death over it*? Because I don't see anyone pro-gay backing down and I doubt they will in the next ten years, or the next fifty.

Either give them these rights or strip marriage of all rights and be goddamn done with it, once and for all.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#21 Sep 20, 2010
I actually think it's comical that people argue it legally. The focus on the *law itself* drives people to the presumption that there must be some *legal standing or argument* to the very basis of life *as a heterosexual paradigm has unwittingly established it*.

Basically, this is actually THIRD-GRADE logic. If Mary is swinging on the swingset, THEN JANE CAN TOO. There is no reason to *restrict Jane* from the swingset. I am oversimplifying, but my point is clear. Bullying, shortsighted children would restrict Jane, sure. It's funny to restrict her, it's exciting to see her get angry or cry; they don't give a shit. But there's no *reason* to do so. Basically, and ALMOST EVERYONE ALIVE misses this point or complicates it with nonsense and qualification, if YOU'RE EATING A CANDY BAR on the corner of Mercer and Strong, then SO CAN I. Period.

It really is that simple.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hastings College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Top chef from Hastings pens book on his career Dec '14 Rev Tony Abbott 3
News Colleges are beginning to put more emphasis on ... (Sep '12) Jan '14 Miguelita 3
News Colleges open their eyes: ZZZs are key to GPA (Sep '12) Sep '13 Derrick 2
News Stolen Gem. Can College Coaches Make Good Pro C... (Jan '13) Jan '13 elena 1
News Day of the Dead a time to celebrate (Nov '11) Nov '11 whatever 2
News Christians do not discriminate against homosexuals (Apr '10) Jun '11 corrective_uncons... 34
News Former county DA George Foley Sr. made Nevada -... (Sep '10) Sep '10 jewelers 1
More from around the web