Justice Scalia's bias against gays

  • Article by: DANA MILBANK , Washington Post
  • Updated: December 12, 2012 - 11:38 AM

Scalia finds himself with a growing list of foes: public opinion, empirical evidence, his own writings and an increasing number of conservative legal thinkers.

  • 61
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
muggsh2oDec. 12, 1211:30 AM

Empirical evidence? What empirical evidence? This is all about public opinion.

stingballDec. 12, 1212:01 PM

Scalia ALWAYS lets his personal political ideology get in the way of doing what he is supposed to do -- impartially interpret the Constitution and the law.

budgrant00Dec. 12, 1212:07 PM

The man has a point that would be obvious to the author if she would simply apply it to her own biases and moral compass. I don't agree with him, but I can see his point clearly once it is separated from an emotional issue.

pinky1933Dec. 12, 1212:09 PM

measuring public opinion IS a form of empirical observation. (sigh)

goldengoph3rDec. 12, 1212:43 PM

Scalia, not society, is the one unraveling a bit, it seems. The irony of his gay marriage position is that he opposes it yet it doesn't not appear anywhere in the Constitution. His "originalist" beliefs hold true only when it serves him.

clintonliesDec. 12, 1212:47 PM

Only the political left and the lame stream media is allowed to be biased.

davehougDec. 12, 1212:54 PM

Sodomy was struck down because moral traditions did not have 'a pressing state interest', or words to that effect. NO law based in morality would stand unless the state could show the harm done. I really don't see how anyone that wants multiple spouses can be denied either with a simple ME TOO re-definition of marriage.

helenmajorDec. 12, 1212:54 PM

Scalia wrote that laws “called into question” by the court striking down the sodomy ban were “laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.” Scalia is guilty of using a logical fallacy to intentionally trick others into thinking that a series of actions or conditions are equivalent and therefore laws affecting one affect all others. Where to begin? First,Scalia cites bigamy and adultery, both of which involve deception and contractual breaches with an unwilling spouse. when he cites with bigamy and adultery. Legalizing gay marriage would not change the definition or characteristics of either bigamy as fraudulent contract with at least one of the spouses and adultery, blistering pain that it causes, is not a crime under the law. Most adulterers don't seek their partners consent but the law doesn't see that as its jurisdiction. Bigamists generally don't seek the consent of their partners either but they also scam the state, and the law prohibits it. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't change this. Next he cites adult incest, masturbation and obscenity as co-equal to homosexuality under the law. This piece leaves me speechless-has the man not heard of Fifty Shades of Gray or watched True Blood on HBO? Is he not aware that adult incest, if consensual, is not generally prosecuted if discovered (also how often do you hear about it in the news?) And masturbation is a pre-vatican II sin confessed by male adolescents for a few Hail Mary's. Not one that gets one cited for a fine or establishes one as a sex offender. In fact, the line between masturbation and a sexually healthy individual is not one I have seen drawn since the 60's. Prostitution is legal in some states and bestiality is probably best dealt with by animal rights groups. The issue here being consent between partners able to consent. Scalia ties up a series of acts, taboo or otherwise as a package, an all or nothing choice. This is his second use of logical fallacy -- after conflating unequal actions he presents a false dichotomy, that there are only two choices and asking us to ignore the wealth of choices that we actually have.

firefight41Dec. 12, 12 1:13 PM

Scalia finds himself with a growing list of foes: public opinion, empirical evidence. *********** They use empirical evidence since there is no Scientific evidence.

dtmonkeyboyDec. 12, 12 1:21 PM

I expect a supreme court justice to apply at minimum a logical argument. In the case of Scalia and the sodomy law he does not. He states that the "law banning sodomy is on par with laws forbidding bestiality or murder" There is a key difference. Murder is NOT consensual. And, beastiality involves non-human creatures that can not consent...and for that matter are not covered by the constitution. He clearly is motivated by emotion, not logic.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters