Scalia: Homosexuality is a moral issue that people, not judges, should decide

  • metta

    Posts: 39079

    Jun 23, 2013 12:09 AM GMT
    Scalia: Homosexuality is a moral issue that people, not judges, should decide

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/06/scalia-homosexuality-is-a-moral-issue-that-people-not-judges-should-decide/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 12:11 AM GMT
    If all guys looked like him, homosexuality wouldn't exist.

    Scalia.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 12:31 AM GMT


    "Homosexuality is a moral issue that people, not judges, should decide"

    Mmmhmm. Like how people, not judges, decided interracial marriage was OK? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 12:59 AM GMT
    Well since most Americans want it to be legal...haven't we already decided?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:17 AM GMT
    And as a judge, he should know and understand that not everyone shares the same morals. That he has to uphold a moral that makes sense by the words of the Constitution - NOT HIS OWN.

    God, I wish people would learn the difference between their own/Religious/whatever moral values and opinions and the morals that can be upheld legally in a free society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 3:43 PM GMT
    Don't let yourselves be sucked in by this asshole. Scuzlia is wrong to say homosexuality is a moral issue as it most certainly is not. It's an issue of science, that our lives are just as legitimate as heterosexuality.

    The only moral issue here to judge is society's denial of our equal rights. Judge not us. Judge yourselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:14 PM GMT
    Not really a surprise here. I think we always knew what side of the fence he would be on. Such a choice, that he chooses to further reveal himself as a supreme asshole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:19 PM GMT
    Just thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    Same here. Nice to know that as a judge he MUST recuse himself in the vote then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:34 PM GMT
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    But laws do define morality. Thou shalt not kill. And we have laws for that.

    You have to stop thinking of your being gay as a matter of morality. It is not. It is a matter of humanity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:40 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    But laws do define morality. Thou shalt not kill. And we have laws for that.

    You have to stop thinking of your being gay as a matter of morality. It is not. It is a matter of humanity.


    I think the judges see it as a right to life issue versus morality. But I totally agree with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 4:45 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    But laws do define morality. Thou shalt not kill. And we have laws for that.

    You have to stop thinking of your being gay as a matter of morality. It is not. It is a matter of humanity.

    I agree totally. But I'm just saying from his perspective, he should have come to that conclusion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 5:09 PM GMT
    This is not an issue of morals!! For fuck's sake!!! icon_mad.gif
    We are Gay because that's how nature made us. Same as Asians have their certain eye shape...blacks have different shades of black skin...caucasians have different color hair....Some people are 5'6" while others are 6'5"! Some of us are Gay, some aren't!
    Not moral issues! It's nature. It's how we were made.

    It basically comes down to religion and the morons who follow it. They believe we are Gay because we choose to be.
    If the religious brainwashers and their sheep would admit the fact that we are Gay as nature intended us to be, then we as Gay people would be afforded EXACTLY the same rights as other tax paying citizens in this country are. But because the republicans have their heads shoved so far up the religious' asses, we are being held hostage.

    Scalia and the other right wing fucktards will keep denying tax paying citizens our equality!

    Tristan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 5:17 PM GMT
    Uh, Scalia, judges are people ... except you. You usually act like a rat.
    icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:20 PM GMT
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    The thing with the SCOTUS we need to understand is that those justices are several layers removed from being elected officials, nor do they necessarily represent the will of We, the People.

    At best, the justices and their senses of morality represent a mural of different snapshots captured at different times, which even then are somewhat disconnected from the periods in which those justices were appointed (by the POTUS) approved (by the Congress) and seated (by Constitutional authority).

    Their collective job is not to legislate per se, but to interpret existing law in light of the Constitution and existing case precedent.

    Justice Scalia is a brilliant man - and I honestly believe that he is writing his opinions based far more from his grasp in Constitutional law than from any especially bigoted or reactionary desire to throw American society back to the Victorian era of morality.

    Coming back to the illustration of the "mural" I mentioned - the shared morality of the SCOTUS is at the same time skewed perhaps as much as a generation behind that promoted by the mass media, and is somewhat subjected to a level of reserved expression.

    In other words - Justice Scalia (and the rest of the SCOTUS) speaks rightly when they strive to judge the law by its own merits, and to let the people decide on matters of what is and is not moral.

    And in some ways, that is can be a bit scary: what guides what is moral?

    Clearly, outright murder and theft and rape are immoral.

    But in other areas, the public morality has shifted substantially in the past century.

    While the fine folks at the AFC and NARTH suggest that allowing marriage equality will open the door for polygamy and polyamoury ... and to take a wild strain here - perhaps we might see a day when people will want to marry an artificial intelligence.

    At that point - the SCOTUS will once again have to weigh in on a matter that may be morally repugnant in one era, and acceptable in another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:34 PM GMT
    Myol said
    theantijock said
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    But laws do define morality. Thou shalt not kill. And we have laws for that.

    You have to stop thinking of your being gay as a matter of morality. It is not. It is a matter of humanity.


    I think the judges see it as a right to life issue versus morality. But I totally agree with you.


    Morality in the sense of controlling behavior because we've also instances of society where right to life regarding killing is not as questioned such as in war. While there are behaviors involved in the living of being gay, being gay itself is not a behavior (certainly not in any way different from being str8 other than the mechanics of it) and so if it is as legitimate, which we know it is--that argument they've already lost--as being str8, then equal rights require being endowed.

    So while the religious right is trying to say that we are redefining marriage, when we're only extending an existing definition to include us which is not redefining--painting the garage yellow like the house is painted yellow does not redefine yellow paint--they're trying to redefine sexuality, another argument they've already long lost. At this point they're just pathetic.
  • madsexy

    Posts: 4843

    Jun 23, 2013 6:38 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThe thing with the SCOTUS we need to understand is that those justices are several layers removed from being elected officials, nor do they necessarily represent the will of We, the People.

    At best, the justices and their senses of morality represent a mural of different snapshots captured at different times, which even then are somewhat disconnected from the periods in which those justices were appointed (by the POTUS) approved (by the Congress) and seated (by Constitutional authority).

    Their collective job is not to legislate per se, but to interpret existing law in light of the Constitution and existing case precedent.

    Justice Scalia is a brilliant man - and I honestly believe that he is writing his opinions based far more from his grasp in Constitutional law than from any especially bigoted or reactionary desire to throw American society back to the Victorian era of morality.

    Coming back to the illustration of the "mural" I mentioned - the shared morality of the SCOTUS is at the same time skewed perhaps as much as a generation behind that promoted by the mass media, and is somewhat subjected to a level of reserved expression.

    In other words - Justice Scalia (and the rest of the SCOTUS) speaks rightly when they strive to judge the law by its own merits, and to let the people decide on matters of what is and is not moral.

    And in some ways, that is can be a bit scary: what guides what is moral?

    Clearly, outright murder and theft and rape are immoral.

    But in other areas, the public morality has shifted substantially in the past century.

    While the fine folks at the AFC and NARTH suggest that allowing marriage equality will open the door for polygamy and polyamoury ... and to take a wild strain here - perhaps we might see a day when people will want to marry an artificial intelligence.

    At that point - the SCOTUS will once again have to weigh in on a matter that may be morally repugnant in one era, and acceptable in another.


    I have to agree. Scalia IS brilliant, albeit not particularly enlightened as to contemporary mores. I think that's what he's trying to say: IN A PERFECT WORLD, people would decide, over time, how the society which they comprise has changed, and the SCOTUS would only decide when the Constitution was in conflict, which would, hopefully, lead to an amendment. The SCOTUS decisions (soon) will tell us where their heads are at on the subject, but I believe (notwithstanding the potential of being taken in by his comment - which I'm not, frankly - it didn't surprise me but it doesn't change my opinion as I bet on the outcome) the decisions will be that PEOPLE should decide, but that PEOPLE must act within the confines of equal treatment under the law and that, therefore, Prop 8 and DOMA are unconstitutional.

    Which, frankly, will just raise the game. I don't believe there will be a Federal law that marriage is for any two capably consenting people in the US, at least not anytime soon, though I'd be happily surprised if there is. But what I think will happen is that the ruling will give direction to our foes and suggest that IF they believe that this is to be proscribed, then it must be a Constitution amendment. Which makes it nearly impossible due to the process and virtually impossible due to public sentiment in our favor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:50 PM GMT
    I hope Scalia isn't left handed. I mean, come on, everyone knows that choosing to write legal opinions with the left hand is morally duplicitous at best. The Romans didn't call it "sinister" for nothing!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 6:51 PM GMT
    He is the smartest and most erudite justice. I've met him in person. He's really great!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 7:05 PM GMT
    IceBuckets said
    theantijock said
    IceBuckets saidJust thought this:

    If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)


    But laws do define morality. Thou shalt not kill. And we have laws for that.

    You have to stop thinking of your being gay as a matter of morality. It is not. It is a matter of humanity.

    I agree totally. But I'm just saying from his perspective, he should have come to that conclusion.


    From a perspective of gay being a morality and not a sexuality, then it would be subject to such law making. Government makes lots of laws on morality from how people treat each other with antidiscrimination laws to under aged drinking.

    But I don't know if that's truly his perspective or if it is a perspective he represents in remaining true and consistent with his usual douchebaggery. It's hard to believe that he doesn't truly know that being gay isn't a matter of morals. Could be he still is a douche in his heart of hearts; I don't know his mind.

    If he has ever come to a revelation that gay people are equal with str8 people and I don't know how an intelligent person wouldn't, then he would have to put all of his past thoughts (rulings) in question. So is he obliged to maintain the integrity of that, or if he has come the realization that we are equal to him, then does not acting upon that destroy his integrity? If he's not just a total stupid pig of a person, then he's a pig stuck in shit. Maybe he just doesn't know how to get out of that or maybe he just sees himself playing what's actually an important role, because we really do need to continually test our thoughts.

    "The more convinced you are that a certain point of view is right, the more determined you should be to find proofs that it is wrong" ~~Aleister Crowley

    "Life is a play and we all play a part:
    the lover, the dreamer, the clown..."
    ~~Laugh, Clown, Laugh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 7:19 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    KJSharp saidHe is the smartest and most erudite justice. I've met him in person. He's really great!

    I get so very tired of people saying he's brilliant.

    He is deeply dishonest. He starts with whatever conclusion he wants to reach and then finds some flimsy legal pretext for reaching it. He is an ideologue, and they are never honest.

    Brilliant my dorsal fin.


    That sounds more like Roberts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 7:50 PM GMT
    KJSharp saidHe is the smartest and most erudite justice. I've met him in person. He's really great!
    Scalia's perspective is that of a simpleton. He somehow sidesteps the obvious fact that the constitution has a long train of amendments and a massive body of law accompanying it. It is the job of the supreme court to make sense of it it all, and to, moreover, protect the rights of citizens in its interpretations of law. Since when do voters have the right to remove basic civil rights? A democracy is a rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Civil rights ought to trump morality in any courtroom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 8:21 PM GMT
    It's not homosexuality as an orientation that is up for judgment, but marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    mileshelvetica saidIt's not homosexuality as an orientation that is up for judgment, but marriage equality.


    Incorrect.

    Marriage is just the gown.

    This judges being gay as legitimate an orientation as being str8. This isn't just about marriage equality. This is about equality.
  • madsexy

    Posts: 4843

    Jun 23, 2013 8:36 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    KJSharp saidHe is the smartest and most erudite justice. I've met him in person. He's really great!

    I get so very tired of people saying he's brilliant.

    He is deeply dishonest. He starts with whatever conclusion he wants to reach and then finds some flimsy legal pretext for reaching it. He is an ideologue, and they are never honest.

    Brilliant my dorsal fin.

    Disagree X100. Read his opinions (with an open mind) and you'll change your . . . dorsal fin.