Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mbwuto · 04-20-2005, 01:15 PM

I read this on plastic.com and thought I should share a humorous, and interesting situation with you all

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44524.htm

And a letter from the questioner

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespac...ement_fro.html

So, the real question here, despite all the humorous hype, is whether Scalia should be vilified for his views on homosexuality. I know the kneejerk response is that since he hates gays, we should in turn hate him for his bigotry. That doesn't fly well with me. I know a lot of people with backwards ass views that I love despite them.

The remark was made in regards to this case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=02-102

Scalia was not the only judge to uphold the Sodomy laws in Texas. Another judge(Thomas?) also ruled the law as constitutional while at the same time decrying it.

Could it be possible that the laws themselves are constitutional while at the time being immoral and fruitless? Possible. But the real question is whether or not Scalia supported the law based only on Constitutionality(is that even a legitimate word?)

From his dissenting opinion

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. 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 criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

What I did find interesting was that Scalia implied that allowing legal homosexual conduct might also allow homosexual marriage(later in the dissent).

So, while I am somewhat loathe to bring up the brush fire that is gay rights, what do you think of Scalia and his opinion? Do you think the Constitution grants a right to sexual freedom? Do you think asking Scalia whether or not he sodomizes Mrs. Scalia was fair?

For the record, I don't think the Constitution, as written and interpreted by the writers, grants any sexual freedom. After all, all states had sodomy laws on the books until 1961. Many even put folks to death. Whether or not you can tease out the right is somewhat inconsequential to me given the original intent. Perhaps an amendment is in order...BWAHAHAHA! Whew. We all know the likelihood of that given the current power structure.

I also think the question was entirely fair, but still very contemptous. It had no real point other than illustrating a perfectly rational point, but it did it so eloquently! I'm not sure Scalia should be vilified for his ruling though. His job is not to be an arbiter of culture or customs, only to rule according to the Constitution.

04-20-2005, 01:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mbwuto Crazy	Scalia and a gallon of Astroglide I read this on plastic.com and thought I should share a humorous, and interesting situation with you all http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44524.htm And a letter from the questioner http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespac...ement_fro.html So, the real question here, despite all the humorous hype, is whether Scalia should be vilified for his views on homosexuality. I know the kneejerk response is that since he hates gays, we should in turn hate him for his bigotry. That doesn't fly well with me. I know a lot of people with backwards ass views that I love despite them. The remark was made in regards to this case http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=02-102 Scalia was not the only judge to uphold the Sodomy laws in Texas. Another judge(Thomas?) also ruled the law as constitutional while at the same time decrying it. Could it be possible that the laws themselves are constitutional while at the time being immoral and fruitless? Possible. But the real question is whether or not Scalia supported the law based only on Constitutionality(is that even a legitimate word?) From his dissenting opinion "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. 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 criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best." What I did find interesting was that Scalia implied that allowing legal homosexual conduct might also allow homosexual marriage(later in the dissent). So, while I am somewhat loathe to bring up the brush fire that is gay rights, what do you think of Scalia and his opinion? Do you think the Constitution grants a right to sexual freedom? Do you think asking Scalia whether or not he sodomizes Mrs. Scalia was fair? For the record, I don't think the Constitution, as written and interpreted by the writers, grants any sexual freedom. After all, all states had sodomy laws on the books until 1961. Many even put folks to death. Whether or not you can tease out the right is somewhat inconsequential to me given the original intent. Perhaps an amendment is in order...BWAHAHAHA! Whew. We all know the likelihood of that given the current power structure. I also think the question was entirely fair, but still very contemptous. It had no real point other than illustrating a perfectly rational point, but it did it so eloquently! I'm not sure Scalia should be vilified for his ruling though. His job is not to be an arbiter of culture or customs, only to rule according to the Constitution. __________________ - people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent. George Orwell Last edited by Mbwuto; 04-20-2005 at 01:19 PM..