A.P. intentionally misquotes Scalia

A.P. ^

[Capt. Jake]

This is what the AP reports Justice Scalia as writing in dissent in the Texas sodomy case: "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." Here is what he actually wrote: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."

[Capt. Jake]

I have no doubt that this misquote was intentional. Watch for it to appear in all major papers tomorrow.

[RAT Patrol]

The very act of saying "nothing against homosexuals" allows them to claim a status they are not entitled to. There are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts. Those acts are immoral. Would anyone say "nothing against adulterers" or nothing against shoplifters"? To the extent that a person identifies themselves with a behavior, a person has every right to be for or against it. Better he would have said "Nothing against humanity" or "nothing against men."

But your point about the AP is noted.

[The Old Hoosier]

A VERY good point, but your posting of it could stop them.

[Capt. Jake]

I've emailed the editor of my local paper already. The paper was running the story online. When the Maureen Dowd column misquoting Bush on al Qaeda first appeared in the NY Times, I alerted my paper to the misquote. Even though the Dowd column was a regular one, the editors agreed that the quote was misleading and did not run it.

[larlaw]

Of course, the intent of taking that quote out of context makes him out to sound flippant and "insensitive"...akin to "some of my best friends are (name your minority)"

[Capt. Jake]

Or Seinfeldian: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

[OREALLY]

Doing the right thing has never been the easy thing...I am sure all 3 of the brave disenting Justices are going to get many attacks...Thanks you for doing the right thing.

[firewalk]

Bttt

[Az Joe]

Do you have a link to the CORRECT quote?

[caisson71]

Bravo. What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle. What the court has done is decide in favor of a deviant, unhealthy sex act. The SCOTUS is really dizzy these days.

[Yardstick]

These media weasels. I'm sure you're right that it's an intentional misquote.

Scalia wrote:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

If you take out "or any other group", which is grammatically non-essential, you get:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

So the reporter basically took the above sentence and recast it as:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals.

This has a different meaning and sounds kind of gauche (as larlaw mentioned in post #5).

I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox.

[ItsJeff]

What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle.

What you don't know about homosexuals is a lot.

[weegee]

The homosexual agenda was advanced today and it wasn't through democratic means. We do not elect the Supreme Court and the legislature did not overturn the laws.

Evidence points that the men charged in Texas conspired to create the circumstance that they found themselves in. They wanted a test case and a homosexual roommate and lover of these men made the false emergency call to the police.

If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?

[Travis McGee]

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers being given the death penalty."

*****************************************************************

Hmmm.... according to the AP, the first line is a fair excerpt from the first.

[Travis McGee]

From the second. Whoops.

[freeangel]

In that case, I had better save this to foreward to the AJC and Cynthia Tucker tomorrow.

[xm177e2]

I don't understand, how was Scalia misquoted? How did the reporter twist his words?

[Yardstick]

If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?

Scalia says he is fine with gays advancing their agenda through legitimate democratic processes, so his dissent shows that he considers the advancement of the gay agenda through this court decision *not* to have been the result of a legitimate democratic process. He would probably feel the same way about similar decisions involving incest, drug, and prostitution laws. He would feel that the SCOTUS would be wrong in ruling against them.

[VRWC_minion]

Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Oh yeah ? Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me, says the gay in the cramped elevator.

[okie01]

"I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox."

For example, I read a 600-word obituary of Lester Maddox last night. Somehow, not a single one of those 600 words was "Democrat"...