Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has always held that the reason that homosexuality must be illegal is that the Supreme Court’s job is to legislate morality. His – ahem – logic is as follows; “murder is immoral and the courts legislate that.” Seriously, and he’s on the Supreme Court bench. What Mr. Scalia is too stupid to realize is that murder, while certainly immoral, is also a crime. For our purposes here today let’s define crime as any act that harms another person without their permission. I don’t want to jail dominatrices. How does two people loving each other qualify as a crime? There are no parts of the country where sodomy is mandatory. Nowhere do they grab young women from their homes and force them listen to k.d. lang records. Simply put if there is no harm then there is no foul.
Not that anyone should be shocked by Scalia’s recent statements. In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence versus Texas. Long story short, a guy named John Lawrence was arrested for possibly having oral or anal sex with another man at a crime scene in Houston. Yeah, I’m not sure how he did both at the same time either but it made sense in Texas. The Supreme Court ruled that there were ten pounds of wrong wrapped in a five pound bag there and threw out the charges as well as the related laws. Scalia dissented arguing that the same logic could be used to overturn Roe -v- Wade.
It has to be no fun living in that tiny mind.
After the ruling Governor Rick Perry of Texas refused to change his state’s laws on sodomy since, as far as he knows, the Supreme Court’s rulings don’t apply to him or Texas. I believe that defines the phrase “unclear on the concept.”
Anyway, yes, we are living in the 21st century. It just doesn’t seem like it all the time.
Fortunately for all, entropy is real. Antonin Scalia will, as all flesh will, turn to dust. And, as Neil Steinberg recently pointed out, that may be all that the world requires.
(…) the United States Supreme Court announcing Friday that it will take up the issue of gay marriage — ruling on a pair of cases, one in New York, one in California, that go to the heart of the matter — is both dramatic and meaningless.
Dramatic because this is the first time the high court has weighed in on this. And meaningless because the issue has already been decided. To realize that the gay marriage question has been settled, all you have to do is look at the way public opinion breaks down into a direct relationship between age and approval. The younger a person is, the more comfortable they are with the idea of gay marriage. The older a person is, the more likely they are to be uncomfortable with the idea that homosexual citizens should be allowed to marry and form families.
Thus at this point, if nothing were done, the simple progression of time and the passing of the generations would settle the matter, just as cassette tapes have given way to iPods. In a few decades our grandchildren will look back on our current, dwindling prejudices against gay marriage with the same incomprehension we extend toward bigotries of the past — what, Jews couldn’t check into certain hotels? Blacks couldn’t use white restrooms? But grandpa, why?
Before anyone gets the idea that I’m piling on stupid conservatives I can assure that liberals have their share of strident idiots as well. If you want to have some fun with them go to your local mall, set up a table and place a sign on it that says END WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE!
You’ll have 1,000 signatures by dinner. None of the signatories being aware that they just agreed to end a woman’s right to vote.
In other words knee jerk and uninformed reactions can come from anywhere. And it is those reactions, and not logic or facts, that still prevail in states like Idaho, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi & Louisiana where all acts of sodomy are outlawed. Your more liberal states, such as Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas are fine with heterosexual sodomy and only make it illegal for gays.
Yes, I know, Lawrence versus Texas and all that. Well, the states I just mentioned don’t care. Or, more likely, haven’t had anyone explain the big words in the decision to them so they don’t grasp its meaning.
I recently got asked why I cared about this issue. I’m not gay. Nor am I planning on becoming gay. Why does this matter to me? The answer is two fold. On a personal level, I have many gay relatives and friends and see no reason they should be considered 3/5 human. On a broader scale, if we allow the rights of one group to be impeded we are opening the door to allow the rights of all to be lessened.
And the people opposed to gay marriage have a litany of your rights they would like to see abridged. Or eradicated, as the case may be.
Dr. King famously said “The arc of the moral universe is long, but It bends toward justice.” And that is true. History has shown, again and again, that inclusion and diversity are what makes a society stronger. No one gains by exclusion but that doesn’t prevent a strident section of humanity from trying.
To those who point to some obscure moral code written two thousand years ago I remind you that you’re citing the words of a man who hung out with 12 sailors and a hooker.
It’s doubtful He would share your views.