Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech
http://www.theblaze.com ^ | December 11, 2012 | Billy Hallowell

Posted on 12/11/2012 6:55:52 PM PST by NKP_Vet

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.

Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: duplicate; homosexualagenda; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
We need four more justices like Scalia on the court. A liberal's worse nighmare.
1 posted on 12/11/2012 6:55:54 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

If there is secession, I want Scalia as the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of the Free States of America!


2 posted on 12/11/2012 7:16:55 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I am convinced we have at least 3 more.. gulp


3 posted on 12/11/2012 7:18:24 PM PST by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

>> “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

The equality in question doesn’t seem to be a statement of Scalia’s moral position.

Separately, Scalia stated the govt has the Constitutional right to regulate firearms.

He’s an interesting and precise speaker. Not sure about his personal take on matters. He seems to speak on behalf of founding law instead of offering up his subjective views.


4 posted on 12/11/2012 7:23:20 PM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; scottjewell; ebb tide; ...

+ Ping.


5 posted on 12/11/2012 7:24:23 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; scottjewell; ebb tide; ...

+ Ping.


6 posted on 12/11/2012 7:25:03 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
We need four more justices like Scalia on the court. A liberal's worse nighmare.

...and a libertarian's worst nightmare.

7 posted on 12/11/2012 7:35:05 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

What is it about a man preferring to have sex with another man’s asshole that makes them so special? This isn’t like they are another race or religion. They just prefer putting their sex organs into some VERY nasty places. I see no need to set aside ‘special rights’, just for them.

They should have all the same rights under the Constitution that the rest of us have. No more, no less. Personally, I don’t believe marriage should be a legal matter concerning the federal government. In my opinion, the government at any level should have nothing to do with marriage at all.


8 posted on 12/11/2012 7:46:05 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

By libertarian do you mean liberals that believe in small government. That’s all a libertarian is. In all other areas they are no different than a liberal.


9 posted on 12/11/2012 8:25:01 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I think a libertarian is somebody who wants free market and individual responsibility to reign — basically, somebody who believes that government has very limited powers when it comes to economy and society. The government simply exists to defend the rights of free people, whether the free people are religious nuts or fudgepacking fags.

You see a lot of so-called conservatives who want government mandates — mostly on their preferred social agendas. They are no different from liberals who want government to perform social engineering.


10 posted on 12/11/2012 9:20:22 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Very well put!

sadly the desire for social engineering exists in equal force on both the right and left...


11 posted on 12/11/2012 9:46:30 PM PST by Katya (Homo Nosce Te Ipsum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Personally, I don’t believe marriage should be a legal matter concerning the federal government. In my opinion, the government at any level should have nothing to do with marriage at all.

One of my neighbors is very fond of his horse and has told me on several occasions that he would marry her if he could. Another neighbor is interested in acquiring at least two more wives in addition to his current wife. The one across the street has expressed a desire to wed the 13 year old girl that delivers our newspaper.

Tell me, which of these actions should be permitted?

12 posted on 12/12/2012 3:22:09 AM PST by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: verga

I say let them all be permitted. I think the country needs to fall so we can rebuild it.

Sexual deviancy has a way of spilling out of control real fast.

If you look at sexual predators they always start slow and then they go out of control as their desires get the better of them.

All this homo marriage and rights stuff has not affected the average American yet.


13 posted on 12/12/2012 4:59:35 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: verga
" Tell me, which of these actions should be permitted?"

Of course, in the case of the 13 year old and the horse, anyone wishing to get married should be a consenting adults, which would rule these instances out. With regard to the dude wanting two wives, they can knock themselves out, if that's what they REALLY want to do. It's none of my business.

14 posted on 12/12/2012 5:55:54 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Leftists support “gay rights” because it is a very effective way to shake their little fists in God’s face.


15 posted on 12/12/2012 5:57:46 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Of course, in the case of the 13 year old and the horse, anyone wishing to get married should be a consenting adults, which would rule these instances out. With regard to the dude wanting two wives, they can knock themselves out, if that's what they REALLY want to do. It's none of my business.

The point is you have a limit, a line that you won't cross.

16 posted on 12/12/2012 6:51:07 AM PST by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sagar
You see a lot of so-called conservatives who want government mandates — mostly on their preferred social agendas. They are no different from liberals who want government to perform social engineering.

Sad but true.

Too many so-called "conservatives" are all-too-willing to push for an expansion of governmental power, so long as that government is currently pushing their preferred policy.

Justice Scalia's views on the Commerce Clause, and how it justifies any manner of Federal intervention, are frightening.

The notion that governments can ban private behavior that they find "immoral" is every bit as scary. I would have thought that the prospect of facing four more years of Obama would make that perfectly clear.
17 posted on 12/12/2012 6:51:39 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

homosexuality is ONLY recreational as with all the other examples.

it serves no purpose to the future of society.


18 posted on 12/12/2012 6:55:17 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

The great hero to all libertarians, Ron Paul, voted for sodomy in the US Armed Forces. Libertarians could also care less if marriage is destroyed forever. They will argue with you over the “right” of a sodomite to “marry” his/or her “partner”. This is a classic LIBERAL mindset. They also want people to be able to ingest any type of drug they want into their body, no matter how harmful it is to someone’s health. This is also classic LIBERAL mindset. They are also the worse bunch of Neville Chamberlain’s in the world, seeing no war that should have ever been fought. Another trait they have in common with their LIBERAL brothers. And to most libertarians it’s OK to abort a baby because it’s no one’s business but the woman’s if she wants to murder her child.


19 posted on 12/12/2012 2:42:45 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Let’s take it point by point (by the order of importance):

1. Abortion - taking somebody’s life or supporting somebody killing somebody is not a libertarian philosophy. A libertarian would want his government to punish the murderers, because the government exists solely to protect life and liberty and facilitate free market economy. In this case, killing an unborn would be murder and the libertarian government would prosecute the murdering mother and doctor to the fullest extent.

2. Military - a military exists to protect the life and liberty of free people. If those join the ranks meet the criteria (ability to defend freedom) then they should not be barred in a free society. If you believe in freedom, which logically includes freedom to be a flaming homo, it is your right as well. As long as the flaming homosexualism does not prevent you from taking arms against the enemy, then why put constraints?

3. Marriage - first of all, why is the government in this marriage business anyway? For tax deductible reasons? If so, this is the biggest scam ever. Let people decide what marriage is, not your government. It is ironic that “limited government” conservatives want government to dictate to them what should be the most intimate personal decision. If you keep government out of marriage, this “gay marriage” scam goes away anyway.

4. Drugs - you cannot stop people from hurting themselves. Why stop at drugs? Why not alcohol or tobacco? Liberals want to ban those, as well. A libertarian would look at the drug laws in the country and see an out of control government encroachment.

Did I cover all your “concerns” about those evil libertarians?


20 posted on 12/12/2012 5:29:54 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson