Scalia: Judges Should Not Decide if B...

Scalia: Judges Should Not Decide if Being Gay is "Morally" Acceptable

There are 25 comments on the rodonline.typepad.com story from Jun 22, 2013, titled Scalia: Judges Should Not Decide if Being Gay is "Morally" Acceptable. In it, rodonline.typepad.com reports that:

Judges should not be considered the "moral arbiters" on issues such as abortion, the death penalty and "homosexual conduct", according to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at rodonline.typepad.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
MARC

Bronx, NY

#1 Jun 22, 2013
Scalia is an unreformed bigot, who tries to find his bigotry to be in the Constitution. Scalia enforces a Constitution that he imagines, but that never really existed. He is ideologically alien to the Constitution that he is oath-bound to enforce. I find it frightening that Scalia thinks it is the government’s right, moreover his right, to regulate our sex lives- to bust down our doors, and to drag us off to prison for having sex in a manner that he doesn’t personally approve. This man is a dinosaur, and it’s just to bad that he is not extinct yet.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2 Jun 22, 2013
As usual, the Vatican's loyal vote on the Supreme Court just doesn't get it.

Or maybe in another sense he does, and it galls him.

Judges aren't being asked to decide whether or not being gay is morally acceptable. Judges are being asked to decide whether there exists any legal justification to discriminate against citizens based on their sexual orientation or sex.

He apparently believes that legislatures can decide issues of morality but that judges can't.

Scalia believes that state legislatures should have the power to criminalize the private intimate (non-commercial as opposed to personal) relations between adults based solely on the real or perceived sex or sexual orientation of individuals and the moral opprobrium that a state can assign to such people or relations.

In his Lawrence dissent, he acknowledged that denying civil marriage to same-sex couples has no legal justification aside from moral antipathy.

Take moral evaluation away from judges and they would have to abide by the decisions of states that target gay people because of their sex or sexual orientation.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#4 Jun 22, 2013
Well, it's a good thing that no one is asking him to rule on morality.....but on the Constitution regarding rights for Gay and Lesbian couples.......nothing more and nothing less!!!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#5 Jun 22, 2013
Cleavon wrote:
<quoted text>Justice Scalia ROCKS, two bad we don't have more wise men like him on the USSC!!!
I would prefer someone who does not lie 24/7, little liar, like you...BERNARD, KIRK, PIERRE, CLEAVON.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#6 Jun 22, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, it's a good thing that no one is asking him to rule on morality.....but on the Constitution regarding rights for Gay and Lesbian couples.......nothing more and nothing less!!!
Perhaps Scalia was responding to the letter that a coalition of some 200 rightwing religious nuts calling themselves the "Freedom Federation" released the other day, threatening to... to... well to do SOMETHING if gay couples win at the Supreme Court.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anarchy-...

In their harrumphing letter, they wrote:

"If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time."

Scalia -- perhaps telegraphing at least a partial victory for gay couples -- argues that the Court shouldn't invoke a "moral authority" or be an arbiter of morality.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7 Jun 22, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps Scalia was responding to the letter that a coalition of some 200 rightwing religious nuts calling themselves the "Freedom Federation" released the other day, threatening to... to... well to do SOMETHING if gay couples win at the Supreme Court.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anarchy-...
In their harrumphing letter, they wrote:
"If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time."
Scalia -- perhaps telegraphing at least a partial victory for gay couples -- argues that the Court shouldn't invoke a "moral authority" or be an arbiter of morality.
I read that, but they were very vague in how they were going to accomplish that.......seems that's all they have these days......vagueness!!!

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#8 Jun 22, 2013
Scalia voted against legalizing same-sex intimate relations in Lawrence vs. Texas, presumably based on his moral beliefs, yet now he's saying judges shouldn't do that? WTF?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 Jun 22, 2013
I think Scalia was preparing his audience for the inevitable that he may have in fact voted for. Justices aren't there to weigh the morality of an issue but its constitutionality in a secular society. His holier than thou temper tantrum in the Lawrence dissent came back to haunt him on this one and he may have ended up doing the right thing.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
I think Scalia was preparing his audience for the inevitable that he may have in fact voted for. Justices aren't there to weigh the morality of an issue but its constitutionality in a secular society. His holier than thou temper tantrum in the Lawrence dissent came back to haunt him on this one and he may have ended up doing the right thing.
Wouldn't that be the shocker if he actually did do the right thing.....that which is oath dictates that he actually do!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11 Jun 22, 2013
Should read HIS not is......oops!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Jun 22, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Wouldn't that be the shocker if he actually did do the right thing.....that which is oath dictates that he actually do!!!
That would rattle some folk wouldn't it? But there's a shot that he did, given this speech.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
I think Scalia was preparing his audience for the inevitable that he may have in fact voted for. Justices aren't there to weigh the morality of an issue but its constitutionality in a secular society. His holier than thou temper tantrum in the Lawrence dissent came back to haunt him on this one and he may have ended up doing the right thing.
Rick... you don't really think this is a reasonable probability, do you? From the man who wrote:

"[T]he 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."

and this

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court."

His question above is rhetorical; he does not agree with the premise upon which it is based.

He clearly believes that states have the power to proscribe homosexual "conduct" based solely on moral opprobrium, and that judges shouldn't interpose their moral beliefs ahead of the legislative branch or popular vote, even if it infringes on the equal protections of the law.

If Scalia votes in any way in support of the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, I'll gladly eat a great big bowl of crow.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That would rattle some folk wouldn't it? But there's a shot that he did, given this speech.
I guess will know soon enough......and if he did let the kitty out of the bag a bit......could that be used by the proponents as some sort of grounds for a mistrial or whatever they might try and claim?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15 Jun 22, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rick... you don't really think this is a reasonable probability, do you? From the man who wrote:
"[T]he 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."
and this
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court."
His question above is rhetorical; he does not agree with the premise upon which it is based.
He clearly believes that states have the power to proscribe homosexual "conduct" based solely on moral opprobrium, and that judges shouldn't interpose their moral beliefs ahead of the legislative branch or popular vote, even if it infringes on the equal protections of the law.
If Scalia votes in any way in support of the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, I'll gladly eat a great big bowl of crow.
Be careful of what you say.....it may come back to bite you.......lol!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Jun 22, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Rick... you don't really think this is a reasonable probability, do you? From the man who wrote:
"[T]he 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."
and this
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court."
His question above is rhetorical; he does not agree with the premise upon which it is based.
He clearly believes that states have the power to proscribe homosexual "conduct" based solely on moral opprobrium, and that judges shouldn't interpose their moral beliefs ahead of the legislative branch or popular vote, even if it infringes on the equal protections of the law.
If Scalia votes in any way in support of the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, I'll gladly eat a great big bowl of crow.
Probably not, but still a possibility. Since all 9 Justices have good reason to kill DOMA, you might want amend your crow eating statement to just Prop 8.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Probably not, but still a possibility. Since all 9 Justices have good reason to kill DOMA, you might want amend your crow eating statement to just Prop 8.
I still believe that the ruling regarding Prop 8 will be one of two ways....both with the likelihood of a 5-4 ruling......either the Justice will rule that they shouldn't have take the appeal, basically leaving the 9th's ruling in place(but I doubt that seeing as the Justices struggled with how the 9th came to their ruling) or ruling that the proponents of Prop 8 didn't have Article 3 standing(essentially overturning the 9th's ruling and leaving Walker's ruling in place).

Now, the first ruling would return Marriage Equality back to California after the 9th lifts the stay......HOWEVER the second ruling leaves questions that would need to be answered before Marriage Equality would return.....at least in my opinion.......and I don't see the proponents of Prop 8 giving up on this fight......even though I believe that they won't get far with another round of legal battles in the federal courts!!!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#18 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Probably not, but still a possibility. Since all 9 Justices have good reason to kill DOMA, you might want amend your crow eating statement to just Prop 8.
No, I'm going all the way! Crow be damned!

In Windsor, Scalia will dissent, arguing that Congress was well within its power to set the rules for marriage as it applies to federal law. The national government does not have to borrow the terms from 50 different state laws, he will argue, and can certainly decide upon a uniform and consistent definition for federal purposes. If Edie Windsor's predicament requires a remedy, then the legislative branch, if it so desires, can effect it. Since he doesn't believe there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, there is no equal protection issue for Scalia.

Concerns about the preservation of federalism were Rehnquist's brand of conservatism, not Scalia's.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Jun 22, 2013
Some of those who would have ruled that Congress was well within its powers to enact DOMA, and will probably quietly say so, are going to be the ones holding a pillow over its face, while they tell Congress that the BLAG seriously overstepped its role in attempting to defend it after the Administration bailed. I see an odd 4-3-2 split. 4 to kill DOMA because the law itself is unconstitutional AND the BLAG was out of bounds in its continued defense, 3 who agree that the BLAG had no standing, thus killing DOMA when the Exec raised the white flag, but not so much in agreement with argument on its actual unconstitutionality and the other two who won't have a problem with DOMA or with the BLAG. Nothing like a plurality.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#20 Jun 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Some of those who would have ruled that Congress was well within its powers to enact DOMA, and will probably quietly say so, are going to be the ones holding a pillow over its face, while they tell Congress that the BLAG seriously overstepped its role in attempting to defend it after the Administration bailed. I see an odd 4-3-2 split. 4 to kill DOMA because the law itself is unconstitutional AND the BLAG was out of bounds in its continued defense, 3 who agree that the BLAG had no standing, thus killing DOMA when the Exec raised the white flag, but not so much in agreement with argument on its actual unconstitutionality and the other two who won't have a problem with DOMA or with the BLAG. Nothing like a plurality.
That still would guarantee that Section 3 of DOMA will be tossed and almost 5 years of being legally married......my wife and I will FINALLY be able to reap some of those 1100 federal rights, benefits and privileges!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Jun 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
I think Scalia was preparing his audience for the inevitable that he may have in fact voted for. Justices aren't there to weigh the morality of an issue but its constitutionality in a secular society. His holier than thou temper tantrum in the Lawrence dissent came back to haunt him on this one and he may have ended up doing the right thing.
I read exactly the opposite ... but then I speak Jesuit.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr cpeter1313 57,983
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr cpeter1313 14,239
Happy Thanksgiving!!! 5 hr Brother Bubba 1
News This Is the Gayest Thing I've Ever Seen 5 hr Howard 1
News Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling (Nov '14) 5 hr BangmoPopoPedos 184
News Facebook can tell if you're gay based on a few ... 5 hr Howard 1
Hey Jade! 5 hr Sow Belly 2
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 10 hr Trix 26,531
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 12 hr Frankie Rizzo 49
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 18 hr Frankie Rizzo 112
More from around the web