Tuesday, March 24, 2009

But Scalia Really Is A Homophobe

Fox News is slamming Barney Frank for calling Scalia a homophobe:


(Via Towleroad.)

But here's Scalia in his own words, as written in well-known dissenting opinions. I'll allow him to speak for himself.

Romer v. Evans:
The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of "animus" or "animosity" toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct.

Lawrence v. Texas:
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.

...

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.

Scalia is clearly saying that "murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals" are morally equivalent to adult, consensual homosexual conduct. That is a paradigmatic example of homophobia. Equating being gay with murder or cruelty to animals is just so absurd that those who do must be motivated by either ignorance or hate.

7 comments:

Peggy said...

Sorry, don't see it. You're reaching.

Christopher Patton said...

Scalia is clearly saying that "murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals" are morally equivalent to adult, consensual homosexual conduct. That is a paradigmatic example of homophobia.

Peggy said...

Phobia means 'fear of.' Finding certain behaviors reprehensible is not the same as fear.

Leveling the charge of 'Homophobe' is just a backhanded way of resorting to name-calling when faced with an opinion with which you disagree.

Christopher Patton said...

Fine. Perhaps calling Scalia homophobic is being too charitable. If it's not fear that's driving him to hold such twisted beliefs about gays, then his views likely have a more malevolent basis to them.

Equating being gay with murder or cruelty to animals is just so absurd that those who do must be motivated by either ignorance or hate.

Peggy said...

He's not equating them at all. He's giving other examples of where someone's moral beliefs may bring them to consider a certain behavior as being unacceptable.

Christopher Patton said...

But the difference is that murder and animal abuse are actually bad, whereas homosexuality is not.

Peggy said...

Justice Scalia and I, and millions of others, disagree with you on that score. That's not to say persons with SSA are 'bad.'