Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyFebruary 13th, 2016
If Scalia’s death doesn’t sharpen our attention to what’s really at stake in the 2016 elections, I don’t think anything else will. It’s tempting to think that we’re not likely to see the likes of another Scalia on the top bench. But consider the prospects of a President Trump or a President Cruz or a President Rubio or a President Carson or even a President Kasich entering the White House. I truly believe that all bets will be off, since all of those candidates (except Kasich) have pledged specifically to try to overturn last summer’s Obergefell decision by appointing anti-marriage conservatives to the high court. Scalia was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1986 — nearly thirty years ago — so you can see how high the stakes are for naming his replacement. Cruz, Rubio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel have already demanded that any question of Scalia’s replacement wait until after the elections. So it’s looks increasingly likely that the Senate will filibuster pretty much anyone Obama nominates to be Scalia’s replacement.
In the next several days, we’ll have a number of pious politicos tell us what a great Justice he was, and why they want more Justices like him on the bench. And we’re also going to hear a number of politicians and thought leaders tell us what horrible people we are for remembering Scalia for the judicial scourge that he was. But how can we remember him otherwise, particularly when his oft-quoted dissents from four landmark gay rights cases are so memorable?
So in the interest of remembering that great man Antonin Gregory Scalia, here are some choice quotes from those four dissents. First, from his dissent from Romer vs.Evans (1996):
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a “`bare . . . desire to harm'” homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion’s heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.
…But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct, the fact is that the degree of hostility reflected by Amendment 2 is the smallest conceivable. The Court’s portrayal of Coloradans as a society fallen victim to pointless, hate filled “gay bashing” is so false as to be comical. Colorado not only is one of the 25 States that have repealed their antisodomy laws, but was among the first to do so. But the society that eliminates criminal punishment for homosexual acts does not necessarily abandon the view that homosexuality is morally wrong and socially harmful; often, abolition simply reflects the view that enforcement of such criminal laws involves unseemly intrusion into the intimate lives of citizens.
There is a problem, however, which arises when criminal sanction of homosexuality is eliminated but moral and social disapprobation of homosexuality is meant to be retained. The Court cannot be unaware of that problem; it is evident in many cities of the country, and occasionally bubbles to the surface of the news, in heated political disputes over such matters as the introduction into local schools of books teaching that homosexuality is an optional and fully acceptable “alternate life style.” The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, have high disposable income, and of course care about homosexual rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality.
When the Court takes sides in the culture wars, it tends to be with the knights rather than the villains–and more specifically with the Templars, reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class from which the Court’s Members are drawn. How that class feels about homosexuality will be evident to anyone who wishes to interview job applicants at virtually any of the Nation’s law schools. The interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs. But if the interviewer should wish not to be an associate or partner of an applicant because he disapproves of the applicant’s homosexuality, then he will have violated the pledge which the Association of American Law Schools requires all its member schools to exact from job interviewers: “assurance of the employer’s willingness” to hire homosexuals.
Scalia’s dissent from From Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), which struck down sodomy laws nationwide:
This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples. Texas’s interest in §21.06 could be recast in similarly euphemistic terms: “preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society.” In the jurisprudence Justice O’Connor has seemingly created, judges can validate laws by characterizing them as “preserving the traditions of society” (good); or invalidate them by characterizing them as “expressing moral disapproval” (bad).
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 directed 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 homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right (see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)).
…Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
Scalia’s dissent from US v. Windsor (2013), which declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional (by now, he’s at least seeing the writing on the wall):
However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex),there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “”It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
…The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter,” — with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
…As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “‘bare . . . desire to harm'” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
Scalia’s dissent from Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which struck down bans of same-sex marriage nationwide:
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of theCourt’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
…This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
…If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning ofJohn Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Spunky
February 13th, 2016
I’ll give Scalia credit–he was a sharp guy. As far back as 1996, he realized that the rise was turning for gay rights and gay people. I’ll then take that credit away since, in 2004, 2013, and 2015, he then contradicted his own reasoning and continually voted against giving equal dignity to gay people.
He also realized that “traditional marriage norms” was code for “intolerance of homosexuality.” What a shame that he viewed this same, baseless intolerance as a legitimate reason to legislate against gay people.
We lost a brilliant legal mind, but our society will be better for having a more tolerant mind on the bench.
Lord_Byron
February 13th, 2016
I also hope this points out just how much is at stake in the 2016 election. I hope people can put aside their differences if their candidate isn’t nominated. My biggest fear is a split Democratic party.
Hunter
February 14th, 2016
Somehow, I get a great deal of satisfaction by seeing Scalia condemned by his own words. Brilliant post.
Hunter
February 14th, 2016
Spunky: One thread that runs through these opinions is the idea that the government has a legitimate reason to legislate private personal morality, which is certainly an extra-Constitutional idea, at the very least. I have to question the brilliance of a mind that can’t seem to question its own assumptions.
Arthur
February 14th, 2016
Scalia’s use of the word “Kulturkampf” shows how he viewed modern society, not any constitutional argument. Everything since the 1960’s was an attack on Roman Catholics. An attack he felt personally.
Spunky
February 14th, 2016
Hunter,
No dispute there. Although, if I were being sympathetic, I’d say that belief is a flaw, and that he expressed that flawed belief brilliantly. Not enough to persuade me, and not enough to sound like a good person, but enough for me to somewhat understand his point of view.
And laugh out loud at all his dissents, which I would always read before he majority opinions. Talk about schadenfraude (at his dissents, not his death…).
enough already
February 14th, 2016
Hunter,
A wide swath of Roman Catholic intelligentsia – and Justice Scalia was brilliant, there’s simply no disputing that, reject the Enlightenment principles upon which this country was grounded.
Priya Lynn
February 14th, 2016
Anyone that thinks gays and lesbians don’t deserve equality is far from brilliant.
enough already
February 14th, 2016
Priya,
You underestimate the intelligence and hatred of our enemies.
Priya Lynn
February 14th, 2016
Wrong.
Paul Douglas
February 14th, 2016
“We” didn’t lose a brilliant legal mind, but the über -reactionary catholicist intelligentsia did. He faithfully executed their socio-political agenda without a second thought.
Lucrece
February 15th, 2016
Interesting contrast to the article by Mark Joseph Stern on Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_a_truly_great_supreme_court_justice.html
Perhaps he was truly a scourge in the context of minority rights, but I guess I can concede to his positive aspects in regards to arguments against government and police intrusion.
I resent the police nearly as much as I resent the people unable to separate church from state, so I guess my view of this guy will remain conflicted.
And say what you will, but I’ve heard some oral arguments with him, and the guy is hilariously sharp. Look to MJS’s Slate article on Scalia’s interrogation of counsel on flag burning and DNA collection.
Eric Payne
February 15th, 2016
One of the most important aspects of having a case heard before the Supreme Court is that the Court will follow consistent, Constitutional, guidelines in its decisions. If the Court were to find today that the use of marijuana was Constitutional, then future decisions may expand or restrict upon that finding, but the underlying Constitutional right, once found, will be (and should be) precedent.
In his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, (2003), Scalia stated if there was a Constitutional right to engage in sodomy, then there was nothing to prohibit… and went into a list of social issues, including “masturbation” and gay marriage.
Yet, in both Windsor and Obergefell (2013 and 2015, respectively) Scalia once again dissented, using the same legal reasoning in his Lawrence reasoning when, by his own admission, Lawrencce changed it all, Constitutionally.
As soon as that happened, Scalia showed his true colors.
enough already
February 15th, 2016
We have consistently underestimated the animus directed at us by the people who now run the Republican party.
It doesn’t help us one bit to pretend our enemies can’t be very smart.
Priya Lynn
February 15th, 2016
Smart people don’t hold animus to those who harm no one.
Regan DuCasse
February 15th, 2016
Hi Enough already,
I would say that our enemies haven’t a majority of smart people. At least not smart in the moral or emotionally intelligent aspect.
They are adamant, they are willful, but their strategies haven’t been smart, nor have their arguments.
Which has only appealed to unintelligent, hostile and morally bankrupt people.
So I see, Priya Lynn’s point. I’m sure you do too. Your take and context isn’t so wrong, just a small part of what we’re dealing with.
Even with the dependence on judicial scholars like the justices in so many courts that have been hearing arguments for and against marriage equality, our dissenters may have presented sophist rhetoric, that could be mistaken for intelligence by lesser thinkers. Or non thinkers.
But one doesn’t need an intelligent strategy to stir a mob. One only need lie a lot more actively and often.
Priya Lynn
February 15th, 2016
Regan said “the justices in so many courts that have been hearing arguments for and against marriage equality, our dissenters may have presented sophist rhetoric, that could be mistaken for intelligence by lesser thinkers”.
Exactly. For example in arguing against same sex marriage Scalia argued that bans weren’t unconsititutional because they equally prohibited men and women from having same sex relationships. That’s the same argument that was presented and rejected by the court in Loving vs Virgina when the proponents of banning mixed race marriages argued that the ban wasn’t unconstitutional since both blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying outside their race.
The American Bill of Rights demands that individuals be treated equally. It is not sufficient to say that men and women both have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, it is necessary that Bill have the same right to marry John that Jane has.
Scalia commonly argued this type of sophistry, frequently contradicting himself in past judgments so that he could arrive at whatever conclusion suited him at the moment.
enough already
February 15th, 2016
Sigh.
How you could dismiss the brilliance of Justice Scalia and Ross Douthat, to name but two is beyond me.
The barb that I’m too dumb to see how stupid they are, I got.
Priya Lynn
February 15th, 2016
Nothing brilliant about using the same rejected argument from loving vs Virginia to argue against same sex marriage in obergefell.
MattNYC
February 16th, 2016
Jim, thanks for the “greatest hits” (and I do mean hits–as in character assassination of us).
My biggest take-away from these reminders is that he REALLY, REALLY hated being called a “hater.”
But to paraphrase Baby Jane, “You were, Tony, you WERE!”
enough already
February 16th, 2016
Priya Lynn, et. al.: Come on, kids – it’s long established practice here to object to anything I say on the basis ‘I’ said it.
Carrying that over to declaring the late Justice to have been anything but brilliant is even dumber than the pretence the overwhelming majority of gay men and young women vote.
Even more ill-advised than the foolish campaign of pretending I’m the only man on the face of this planet to dislike condoms.
We can not survive the attacks of our enemies upon our human and civil rights with your attitude. The first step in battling conservative Christian haters such as Justice Scalia is to acknowledge both their strengths and their weaknesses.
The first step toward getting gay men and young women to vote is to figure out why they don’t vote now.
The first step toward ending Aids is to figure out why our past attempts (condoms) have been such a dismal failure.
In short: Wake up and smell the coffee. Even Jim Obergefell has acknowledged Scalia’s service to this country. He’s got the right approach, you do not.
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
“Priya Lynn, et. al.: Come on, kids – it’s long established practice here to object to anything I say on the basis ‘I’ said it.”.
No one disagrees with you just because its you. Drop the feigned paranoia, its unbecoming. People disagree with you solely because what you say is dishonest or wrong.
“Even more ill-advised than the foolish campaign of pretending I’m the only man on the face of this planet to dislike condoms.”.
See, this sort of dishonesty is the reason why people disagree with you and dislike you. Once again you’ve descended into trolling. No one ever made any such claim as you’re well aware. On the other hand, it is you who absurdly claimed “condoms are universally despised”. Don’t try to smear others by falsely accusing them of your own worst behavior.
There’s nothing brilliant about using the same rejected argument from loving vs Virginia to argue against same sex marriage in obergefell. That was stupid and that sort of thing was far from uncommon for Scalia.
MattNYC
February 16th, 2016
All of the objective SCOTUS observers agree that Scalia had a brilliant legal mind, and I have no expertise to disagree.
For all of his brilliance, he was intellectually fraudulent because he ignored legal logic and precedence in many of his ideologically-based opinions. He went out of his way to be mean and petty when the majority did not include him.
Brilliant/Intelligent/Eloquent? Yes.
Honest/with Integrity/Ethical? A BIG FAT NO.
MattNYC
February 16th, 2016
Speaking of his ethics, I wonder how many parties to cases coming before the court were in his hunting group during this fateful trip…
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
“All of the objective SCOTUS observers agree that Scalia had a brilliant legal mind,”.
Its only your opinion, not fact that “all of the objective Scotus observers agree”.
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
You can assert Scalia was brilliant all you want, but the stupid arguments he made in obergefell say otherwise.
MattNYC
February 16th, 2016
@Priya,
First of all, I come not to praise one of the most dangerous Justices in the history of the Supreme Court, but to bury him and make sure he’s really dead.
Anyway, let me rephrase: “MOST objective observers…”
Unless you think that RBG is a mental midget, how about her comments:
“We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.”
Of course, Kennedy’s mention of Scalia’s “integrity” led me to almost spit out my coffee…
MattNYC
February 16th, 2016
er–I mis-represented what Kennedy wrote–it was even worse:
[Scalia’s commitment] “to the highest ethical and moral standards”
<Insert vomiting>
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
Matt, many, if not most people feel an obligation to speak nicely of someone who has died, no matter how stupid and awful a person he was.
There’s just no way to spin it, Scalia’s repeating the same rejected argument of Loving vs Virgina in Obergefell was stupid. You don’t need to be a lawyer or all that bright to see that.
enough already
February 16th, 2016
Sigh.
Priya,
You let your personal dislike of me (which I wear as a badge of honor) colour your opinions.
SharonB
February 16th, 2016
Scalia was an eloquent monster. I am glad he is no longer in a position to leave an imprimatur on the persecution of LGBT citizens.
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
Absolutely not Enough Already. You make you make absurd comments like “condoms are universally despisedâ€, me pointing out you are dishonest has nothing to do with my dislike for you, it is simply an unbiased fact.
Priya Lynn
February 16th, 2016
And on the other hand Enough Already, your dislike for me and your stunning false claims that I am trying to dictate gayness to gays or am trying to subjugate gays is utterly inexplicable.
Ben in oakland
February 17th, 2016
Well, the chronicle, for some inexplicable reason, chose not to publish my piece of Scalia. So, here goes.
So, Scalia is dead. I’m not glad about that, but I am glad that he is finally off the Court. “We” didn’t lose a brilliant legal mind, but the uber-reactionary Catholic intelligentsia certainly did. What we lost was an authoritarian whose commitment to the principles he espoused was questionable, at least. Why, he even thought an execution would be fine, despite the facts of the case, as long as the verdict was reached by appropriate judicial means.
Your reporter called him a conservative. No, contrary to such semantic jiggery pokery, he was a reactionary, longing for the world of long ago when conservative religious ideology prevailed over secular society and liberal religion alike. His respect for the right of the people to govern themselves ignored the reality that the Constitution, and not the people, is the law of the land, though its authority flows from them. How could a Supreme Court Justice not know this?
Nor was he a Constitutional originalist, despite his press releases. That’s just more argle bargle. Not one Founding Father thought corporations are people, or money is speech. But Scalia did. There is no Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to decide presidential elections. That duty belongs to the House. But they did, with his enthusiastic support.
His concerns about Kulturkampf (cultural struggle) in Romer, an irony funnier in the original German, and far truer than he could appreciate, was strictly extra-Constitutional. His support in Lawrence for using secular law to punish religious “sins” elevated his personal, moral disapproval to a civil right. His unrelenting attacks on gay people and our free participation in society, essentially declaring that might makes right and religious ideology trumps secular freedom, are also nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, they are inimical to it, and to the bulk of two centuries of legal thought protecting the individual citizen from the coercive power of the state.
It is a shame to our country and an affront to the Constitution he claimed to revere that he viewed baseless prejudice, religious intolerance, and private “morality” as legitimate reasons to legislate against gay people. He was never one to be deterred by fairness, compassion, manners, or decency, not when power, money, or religious dominion were at issue. His palpable contempt for us was obvious in every one of his losing dissents, even extending to his own colleagues, whom he saw as mere “unelected lawyers” with no authority outside of HIS particular, peculiar view of the Constitution.
Given his decisions supporting the rich, the powerful, and the ideologically and religiously conservative, as one of those unelected lawyers, his “brilliant legal mind” failed to catch the irony. I won’t rejoice in his death. But I will rejoice that a major impediment to the American ideals of freedom and democracy that I was raised with no longer has the power to oppose them.
Oggbert
February 17th, 2016
Priya Lynn – “many, if not most people feel an obligation to speak nicely of someone who has died…”
Expect many, if not most people, that are saying he was a brilliant legal mind, where saying these things WELL before died.
Also, why are you claiming to speak for many, if not most people, in how they feel about someone who died? Can you provide a factual basis for this comment?
enough already
February 17th, 2016
Priya,
But you do, Priya, you do.
Each blog has it’s ‘A-List’ of commentators and the rest of us.
Some blogs – Pam’s Coffeehouse – were among the best, any topic, any time.
And that, regardless of having blog moderators who were beyond right-speak=right-think PC Nazis.
Others, like Towleroad have commentators who are just plain hopelessly nasty. Again, one of the better blogs around.
Boxturtle has our own little group of ‘special’ people. Some deny gay men the right to voice an opinion because of our age/marital status. Others demand gay men conform to the views of themselves as bisexual women.
Yet others deny valid polling because it doesn’t fit their pre-conceived notions of reality.
I refuse to bow my neck to such people and, thus, earn their enmity. Tough.
I have never defended the late Justice Scalia’s stance on us queers, it was so evil, even by conservative Christians standards, it stands alone, right up there with Hitler’s view.
That doesn’t change the fact that he was brilliant.
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
Enough already said “Priya,
But you do, Priya, you do.”.
As I’ve asked you to do in the past (and you’ve refused to) give examples, or STFU.
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
Oggbert said “Also, why are you claiming to speak for many, if not most people, in how they feel about someone who died? Can you provide a factual basis for this comment?”.
I believe it is an uncontroversial statement and I think most people would agree with that. If you want to dispute that or complain that I don’t have proof that its true it doesn’t matter to me.
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
Further to Oggbert’s comment. I did not claim to speak for anyone in how they feel about someone who died.
What I said was “many, if not most people feel an obligation to speak nicely of someone who has died, no matter how stupid and awful a person he was.” – two very different things.
MattNYC
February 17th, 2016
@BiO
Bravo. THAT is far more brilliant than anything Fat Tony ever wrote.
MattNYC
February 17th, 2016
BTW, I couldn’t help myself and had to watch the West Wing episode, “The Supremes”.
enough already
February 17th, 2016
Priya,
I shall not be silenced. Not by some young man who hasn’t a clue what it’s like to see hundreds-of-thousands of your generation die while ‘good’ Christians cheer.
Nor by a bisexual woman who disdains the opinions of gay men.
MattNYC
February 17th, 2016
I’m probably pissing into the wind, but anyway…
@ea/Priya
Rule Number 1 of Internet commenting… don’t feed the flames.
Rule No 2: Grow thicker skin
Many of us appreciate your comments. Less so when they get preachy/judge-y.
I know that your mutual enmity goes back a ways–like the Hatfields and McCoys, I doubt even either of you know how/why/when it started.
Pretend you are in a healthy relationship and just ignore the other when things get testy (hey–it works for me and my partner :)
Please don’t engulf everyone else if you can try to avoid it…
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
Typical Enough Already. You accuse me of wanting to dictate gayness to men, of wanting to subjugate them to some unnamed “politically correct viewpoint”, of trying to silence you but you never have any examples to support your claims. Because you’re a liar.
And then you’ve got the nerve to whine that I don’t like you.
You can’t expect otherwise when you lie about people Enough Already.
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
Matt you hypocrite, don’t blame me for “engulfing everyone else” when you chose to get engulfed.
Priya Lynn
February 17th, 2016
I’ve been a longtime and fierce advocate for gay men. Inexplicably Enough Already wants to pretend that’s not true even though he’s seen me here year after year vigorously defending gay men against the bigots. Instead of being grateful for my help he lies about me and tries to turn me against the gay community. It won’t work EA. The vast majority of gay men are appreciative of my efforts and we are allies. No matter how hard you try to stop that its going to continue.
enough already
February 17th, 2016
MattNYC,
You’re right on all counts. Definitely not pissing in the wind.
Ben in oakland
February 18th, 2016
Thanks, Matt.
Palmer Scott
February 18th, 2016
Ben in Oakland, what you wrote is brilliant.
May I please have your permission to share this post on Facebook?
Priya Lynn
February 18th, 2016
Matt said “I know that your mutual enmity goes back a ways–like the Hatfields and McCoys, I doubt even either of you know how/why/when it started.”.
No, I know exactly when it started, back when Enough Already started lying about me. As to when and why he decided he hates me enough to lie about me only his disturbed mind knows (maybe).
Enough Already keeps accusing me of wanting to dictate gayness to men, of wanting to subjugate them to some unnamed “politically correct viewpointâ€, of trying to silence gay men but he never has any examples to support his claims because he is a liar on all counts.
Jim Burroway
February 18th, 2016
Okay. stop it.
Just stop it.
This thread has gone far too long with personal attacks. Whenever a thread becomes a closed argument between a tiny handful of people and when that argument ceases to have anything to do with the subject of that thread, then it is time for those individuals to take a break, step back, and think very carefully about *why* they are so obsessed with responding to every comment, and if they are going to comment, to think very carefully about *how* they are going to respond.
And to also remember that being the last person commenting doesn’t mean you win the argument. It only means that you wore everyone down.
Well, now you’ve worn me down, and I will now have the last word. If this behavior continues, I will be putting individuals on moderation. This is not the first time we’ve had this problem with the same individuals.
Thank you to those of you who have been making substantive comments in this thread.
Ben in oakland
February 18th, 2016
Please do,Palmer. iT’s why I write.
On another topic– two brilliantsin one thread. At last, I’m not a legend in my own mind.
MattNYC
February 18th, 2016
Some levity…
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/17/1486086/-Cartoon-Scalia-later-alligator
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2016
Scalia was not a great judge: he was a bad one. And his badness consisted precisely in his contempt for the rule of law, if by “the rule of law†one means the consistent application of legal principles, without regard to the political consequences of applying those principles in a consistent way.
Scalia had no real fidelity to the legal principles he claimed were synonymous with a faithful interpretation of the law. Over and over during Scalia’s three decades on the Supreme Court, if one of his cherished interpretive principles got in the way of his political preferences, that principle got thrown overboard in a New York minute.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_please_stop_calling_him_a_brilliant_jurist/
Eric Payne
February 20th, 2016
Ben in Oakland,
I don’t think I’ve seen a more honest assessment of the late Justice Scalia since his death. Bravo.
Ben in oakland
February 20th, 2016
Thanks, Eric.
Eric Payne
February 20th, 2016
BiO,
You’re welcome.
But, really, thank you for the honest look at how the man lived his life without all the argle bargle jiggery pokery verbiage of those who state the man had a “brilliant legal mind.”
He was a moralistic tyrant given a modicum of “power” over others and, damned if he wasn’t going to use it.
enough already
February 21st, 2016
Eric,
No great mind less than RBG has noted the late Justice Scalia’s brilliance.
We do ourselves no favors, only harm we underestimate or intentionally denigrate the skill-sets of our adversaries.
Eric Payne
February 21st, 2016
EA,
One does not speak ill of the dead.
In Scalia’s case, simply reviewing his SCOTUS decisions would be violating that rule.
I like to think Notorious RBG was/is being just a touch sarcastic when referencing Scalia’s mind.
enough already
February 21st, 2016
Eric,
I deeply, profoundly understand the level of disagreement we share with each other on this (and other matters).
Nobody who has read my comments through the years can have any doubts as to my disdain for the late Justice Scalia.
One can despise someone whilst still recognizing that much of the danger they posed came from their intellectual heft.
Discounting our enemy’s skills is dangerous for us.
Not only the notorious RBG, but far too many legal and constitutional professionals share the assessment of his brilliance. You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re denying reality. That’s a dangerous thing for a threatened minority such as we are to do.
Priya Lynn
February 21st, 2016
There’s just no way to spin it, Scalia’s repeating the same rejected argument of Loving vs Virgina in Obergefell was stupid. You don’t need to be a lawyer or all that bright to see that.
enough already
February 21st, 2016
OK, I’m leaving this thread. It’s the only way I can respect Jim’s wishes.
Eric Payne
February 21st, 2016
Priya,
One need not jump to 1967 and the summer of Loviing — a decision of SCOTUS in which Scalia was not one of the adjudicators, by the way — to illustrate Scalia’s repetitious reasonings, but only back to Lawrence, in 2003, in which Scalia not only participated, but found himself in dissent. At the time of his dissent, Scalia expressly noted that if there was no Constitutional grounds to outlaw sodomy then there was no right to, constitutionally, prohibit same-gender marriage.
Yet he still, vehemently, dissented.
Priya Lynn
February 21st, 2016
Eric, the point is not that Scalia had any involvement in Loving vs virgina, its that he used the same argument rejected in Loving in arguing against same sex marriage. Scalia argued that bans weren’t unconsititutional because they equally prohibited men and women from having same sex relationships. That’s the same argument that was presented and rejected by the court in Loving vs Virgina when the proponents of banning mixed race marriages argued that the ban wasn’t unconstitutional since both blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying outside their race.
The American Bill of Rights demands that individuals be treated equally. It is not sufficient to say that men and women both have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, it is necessary that Bill have the same right to marry John that Jane has.
Spunky
February 21st, 2016
Priya Lynn,
Technically speaking, it’s the Fourteenth Amendment, and not the Bill of Rights, that guarantees equal protection under the law. (Sorry…I’m “that guy.”) Although the fact that this wasn’t included in the original Constitution is a shame must always live with.
But of course, I totally agree with your reasoning on Scalia’s faulty reasoning on anything gay-related.
Priya Lynn
February 21st, 2016
I didn’t feel the need to make that distinction Spunky.
Leave A Comment