Text of Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinion [to paraphrase, "epitaph for Christian civilization"]

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[Polycarp]

Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization.

[sinkspur]

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a mem-ber of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valu-able law enforcement resources.

[EternalVigilance]

LOL...I just posted Scalia and Thomas' dissent on the other thread, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936270/posts?page=40#40

Looks like we have it covered now! ;-)

[RAT Patrol]

So? It is irrelevant whether he is for or against the state law.

[sinkspur]

It is irrelevant whether he is for or against the state law.

Clarence Thomas is against it; he thinks it's "silly."

[RAT Patrol]

Excuse me. He is a member of the dissenters, sink. What he thinks of the law is irrelevant to his decision. That's what he is saying. IOW, it should be overturned in Texas, but it's not a constitutional matter.

[Kevin Curry]

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists di-rected at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homo-sexual conduct.

Exactly. A majority of the SCOTUS, acting as a superlegislature of unelected, life-tenured lawmakers from overwhelminngly liberal backgrounds has decreed, "We prefer the progressive way the liberal California Assembly has dealt with this issue. As liberals, we find it most satsifying andf acceptable. Therefore we now pass a law requiring the other 49 state legislatures to do it like California has done it."

"And thanks for asking! On behalf of our revered mentor Antonio Gramsci we would like to assure you we are more than pleased to ignore the 10th Amendment so that we may do your progressive social engineering for you."

[Polycarp]

Interesting that you pluck Thomas' words from the larger context of Scalia's dissenting opinion. I knew someone would, though for completeness I posted Thomas' remarks anyhow.

You probably saw Thomas' line already posted here today, and since it bolsters your own well known opinion, you pointed it out.

Thats OK, but did you bother to read Scalia's opinion here? How about highlighting something important.

[sinkspur]

I found it interesting that Thomas felt a need to express his personal opinion of the law.

I guessed that the law would be overturned, but I thought it would be on the grounds that O'Connor found, which is equal protection, since this law singled out homosexual sodomy.

[EternalVigilance]

I guessed that the law would be overturned, but I thought it would be on the grounds that O'Connor found, which is equal protection, since this law singled out homosexual sodomy.

Yeah. It was illegal for anyone to engage in homosexual sodomy.

Of course, you, and the rest of the libs, are confused about the difference between what you are, versus what you do.

[Kevin Curry]

This is a buttinski SCOTUS enforcing a liberal social engineering experiment on all the states that have different point of view from, say, California and Massachussets. Why do you support liberal social engineering experiments foisted on the rest of us by unelected life-tenured justices? Have you no respect for federalism, for the 10th Amendment?

[mfreddy]

Across the nation, Homos are celebrating.



EEEEEWWWWWWW!!!!!

[RAT Patrol]

Your way would have been much better. As it stands now, gay marriage via the courts is just a matter of time unless we get a Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

[firewalk]

.

[sinkspur]

Thats OK, but did you bother to read Scalia's opinion here?

I did.

How about highlighting something important.

OK.

Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that crimi-nalize private, consensual homosexual acts.

[sinkspur]

Why do you support liberal social engineering experiments foisted on the rest of us by unelected life-tenured justices?

The law was not enforced. Had the Houston police done what every other law enforcement department in Texas has done for the last 30 years, this case would not have made it to the Supreme Court.

[Richard Kimball]

Bump

[sinkspur]

Of course, you, and the rest of the libs, are confused about the difference between what you are, versus what you do.

You're confused, because I am not confused about either.

[Jorge]

Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization.

Too much. Enough of the drama queen hysteria over this decision.

The fact is most sodomy laws have been removed from the books or struck down by the courts in most states FOR YEARS now.

The great majority of Americans oppose any laws that have sex police attempting to prohibit acts of adultery, homosexuality etc between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays and shoots women in the head in soccer stadiums for acts of unfaithfulness.

Truthfully, your obsession with what homosexuals are doing is not shared by most Christians... let alone the general public.

Furthermore, most are disgusted with the double standards of those who want to enforce sodomy laws against gays, but not heterosexuals. People can see through the hypocrisy.