Food for thought: A quote from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texes

“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, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. s654(b)(1) (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).”

Is this an impartial observation or the legitimization of American homophobia?

Barney Frank has called one of the most senior justices of the Supreme Court a homophobe on 365gay News. Justice Scalia is the core of the right wing of the court, a staunch supporter of limited constitutional protections and traditional interpretations of constitutional language and, as Frank contends, a homophobe.

Well, we can’t say for sure that Scalia wouldn’t sit down for dinner with a homosexual, or have a pleasant conversation about the various sock colors that match his robe.

But we can be sure that he does not support protecting gay rights and certainly feels that gay sex is a pretty immoral thing to do.

He also, by the way, doesn’t feel that abortion is protected by the Constitution, nor does he feel that killing kids who commit crimes is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The sad part of this story is that Scalia is not going anywhere anytime soon.

During the election I wrote that court appointments may be the single most important issue of the next four years. Ginsburg is suffering from an aggressive cancer and Stevens is 88 years old and likely to choose to retire under a Democratic President.

But replacing those two Justices will merely keep the balance of the court as it is now: four “left,” four right and one sitting in the middle (keeping in mind that left wing for a Supreme Court Justice is not the same as, say, my brand of progressive politics).

We need to dump Scalia. If Obama has a chance to replace the next two oldest judges – Scalia or Kennedy – the balance would be tipped and the three baby conservatives – Thomas, Alito and Roberts -would be on their own.

Until then, we should keep dissenting.

America is a different country than Scalia thinks it is. It’s not a place interested in a dead Constitution that protects no one not contemplated by the founders. It is a country with a Black President, a female Secretary of State and a very public and close battle over what rights and freedoms sodomites deserve.

We must remind him he is wrong everyday until we finally get rid of him.