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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[sarasmom]

So, correct me if I am wrong.
A tyranny of a minsiscule, sexually deviant minority, now rules in the USA?
Thank you, SCOTUS, for clarifying that deviant humanity minority rules, in the USA.
Anyone left standing, to join me in a class action suit against the government of the USA, for fraudulent use of my time and service in defending the constitution?
What next, a pedophile gets to screw my child,and SCOTUS gets to determine whether or not she has been substantually dammaged by rape?
Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life left on this planet.

[Jorge]

Do you think the states should recognize unions between people of the same sex and give them all the recognition and benefits that traditional marriage gives to heterosexuals?

Excellent question!

While I don't believe a same sex unions should ever be called "marriage"...because by definition I don't believe they are or will ever be true marriage....I am a not so sure about the question of benefits to "domestic partners".

For example..I think it is awful to ban gays from visiting their sick partners in the hospital under rules that only allow heterosexual spouses in.

I mean in who's interest is such a rule? Is this the proper situation to punish people for not being the traditional hetersexual couple? When the closest person to them might be dying?

I think such rules can be simply hurtful and help nobody in any way.

Same thing with some other benefits.

What are we losing if we extend some insurance benefits to gay partners that are commonly given to heterosexual spouses?
We're not paying anymore than we would if they had a hetero relationship...what is the point of punishing them because we don't agree with gay relationships?

Is this the way to express our moral convictions..to make them suffer...while we will agree to the same benefits for heterosexuals who might be cheating on each other...married in name only etc.

Anyway...your question is a good one. And there is no easy answer.

[Skywalk]

Don't tell me you believe that any right not explicitly listed in the Constitution does not exist?

And if you read ALL of Thomas Jefferson's writings, you'd see he had some bizarre ideas about how to cure homosexuals. Uh, you really want to take him up on those 'treatments'(some would call it torture?)

[mfreddy]

Polycarp beat me to it in reply #55

He's very eloquent

[Antoninus]

What I don't understand is why a deacon of the Catholic Church is so publicly supportive of taking laws forbidding sodomy off the books--particularly considering the recent scandals in the Church. Looks very bad.

[sinkspur]

Brian, you and Scalia are both down-side thinkers, always looking to find the smelly pile when there's a pony around.

I simply do not agree with Scalia's apolcalypticism. Interesting that he's the only one who voiced these dire concerns; even Clarence Thomas qualified his agreement with Scalia's dissent.

The Court decides what is in front of it, nothing more.

If a case to overturn bestiality comes before it, I'd lay a considerable sum that it wouldn't even be accepted.

[Skywalk]

It's pointless with our fellow FReepers who cannot separate the issue of limited state powers from a harmful leftist/nihilist agenda.

I suppose the 14th amendment was a victory for the Jesse Jacksons of this world then. Just because an opposing faction may benefit from the correct decision doesn't mean we cannot oppose them in other aspects of society.

I thought we were for LIMITED government on these boards. Yeah, let's round up and gas the homosexuals.

[Desdemona]

A tyranny of a minsiscule, sexually deviant minority, now rules in the USA? Thank you, SCOTUS, for clarifying that deviant humanity minority rules, in the USA.

Well, they have the rest of us by the...cajones.

Seriously, this might just be a wake-up call. Maybe not, but there's always hope.

[mfreddy]

Isn't the government immune from this kind of lawsuit.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Yeah, it's also an epitaph for all the small rodents that are going to die up the bung-holes of the sodomites...

And I can't even think about what the implications are for dogs, cats, sheep, cows, goats...

[B Knotts]

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. Especially if Bush gets to appoint a Justice or two to the Court.

Well, remember, President Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy.

I agree with Justice Thomas. This kind of law is probably not the most prudent use of police power, but the wisdom of the law should be decided by the Texas legislature, not by twisting Constitutional law.

And, a gay marriage challenge is certain to follow this results-oriented decision, probably in short order.

[sinkspur]

What I don't understand is why a deacon of the Catholic Church is so publicly supportive of taking laws forbidding sodomy off the books-

Because they are unenforced, "silly" laws (in the words of Clarence Thomas).

There is a difference between disapproving of homosexual acts and considering them sinful, and enshrining that disapproval into criminal law.

[Antoninus]

It's this stuff that will get Republicans killed in elections.

Wishful thinking. Actually, the gay-crap goes no where when put to an actual vote of the people. That's why they have to use the SCOTUS fiat to get their agenda through. Let the Republicans take a true pro-family, anti-gay agenda stand and watch them win an overwhelming majority....

[Polycarp]

Interesting that he's the only one who voiced these dire concerns

Indeed. Because he's the only clear thinker and real Catholic on the bench. Scalia is right. You, Deacon Sink, are woefully and disappointingly wrong.

[Jorge]

BUT, rather than allow those laws to be repealed democratically by the representatives of the people this court determined to overthrow them in one fell swoop because they were impatient with the American people's speed in accepting the agenda OR they were afraid that their arguments were losing the democratic debate.

Why would they be impatient or afraid of the democratic debate?

Not only have most of the state legislatures removed sodomy laws from the books...and most courts struck down sodomy laws....but polls show a majority of Americans oppose them.

If anything, the Supreme Court made this decision because they knew they were on the winning side..when it came to the democratic process.

[Desdemona]

And, a gay marriage challenge is certain to follow this results-oriented decision, probably in short order.

I think you're right, but I doubt it will be achieved. There's a difference between respecting privacy [cough] for deviance and sanctioning it in contract form (if you take the legal perspective).

[WOSG]

My duty, rather, is to "decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

Justice Thomas in few words demolishes the whole edifice of Liberal artifice on the matter. A truly great Justice!

[7 x 77]

Which of these liberal justices were appointed by Republicans.

Did Bush 41 and Reagan intentionally put some liberals on the court so they wouldn't have to worry about any backlash if the court turned conservative?

[Antoninus]

Why does the increase from 37 states to 50 states constitute an "epitaph for Christian civilization"?

Simply put, because the SCOTUS effectively found a heretofore non-existant "right to sodomy" in the Constitution. Just like the found a "right to abortion" in 1973 and a "right to pornography" in 1969.

In reality, none of these things are among our God-given rights. They are just made-up feel-good nonsense to keep our attention focused away from the fact that they are slowly stipping us of our true God-given rights.

This was a nice country we had once.

[Skywalk]

Once again, I don't think you are able to separate the radical left-gay agenda from the meaning of the Constitution and the concept of limited government.

Shouldn't a person who denies the HOlocaust be allowed to speak his mind? Can't a person be racist if they wish? If we start confusing the "agenda" of the neo-Nazi with the very rights we stand for, then we risk losing ALL OF THEM.

Please separate the distate that we share for the gay agenda, from the very real concept of our sovereignty over our property, including our labor and person.