Replies

Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas says:

"Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1981) & ¶ 52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization."

Then he says:

"To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P.G. & J.H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, & ¶ 56 (Eur.Ct.H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary *577 Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11-12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."

Scalia absolutely trashed this reasoning in his talk. The obvious point is that the Europeans pass their own laws. They don't pass our laws. We pass our laws.

The fact that the Court had to rely on EU decisions to make its point illustrates the fact that the law was not on its side.

Scalia absolutely trashed this reasoning in his talk. The obvious point is that the Europeans pass their own laws.

Scalia also explained that the uber-European-court decided the sodomy issue in Europe; it was not a law passed democratically or a consensus decision by most national high courts.

In other words, judges from a few countries decided the issue for the whole European continent, overriding most national high courts and national parliaments.

Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.

This reprobate judge puts cornholing on-par with decent, intimate relations between a man and wife just because "other nations do." Yeah. Like France. Sick.