[Capt. Jake]

I have no doubt that this misquote was intentional. Watch for it to appear in all major papers tomorrow.

[RAT Patrol]

The very act of saying "nothing against homosexuals" allows them to claim a status they are not entitled to. There are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts. Those acts are immoral. Would anyone say "nothing against adulterers" or nothing against shoplifters"? To the extent that a person identifies themselves with a behavior, a person has every right to be for or against it. Better he would have said "Nothing against humanity" or "nothing against men."

But your point about the AP is noted.

[The Old Hoosier]

A VERY good point, but your posting of it could stop them.

[larlaw]

Of course, the intent of taking that quote out of context makes him out to sound flippant and "insensitive"...akin to "some of my best friends are (name your minority)"

[OREALLY]

Doing the right thing has never been the easy thing...I am sure all 3 of the brave disenting Justices are going to get many attacks...Thanks you for doing the right thing.

[firewalk]

Bttt

[Az Joe]

Do you have a link to the CORRECT quote?

[Yardstick]

These media weasels. I'm sure you're right that it's an intentional misquote.

Scalia wrote:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

If you take out "or any other group", which is grammatically non-essential, you get:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

So the reporter basically took the above sentence and recast it as:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals.

This has a different meaning and sounds kind of gauche (as larlaw mentioned in post #5).

I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox.

[Travis McGee]

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers being given the death penalty."

*****************************************************************

Hmmm.... according to the AP, the first line is a fair excerpt from the first.

[freeangel]

In that case, I had better save this to foreward to the AJC and Cynthia Tucker tomorrow.

[xm177e2]

I don't understand, how was Scalia misquoted? How did the reporter twist his words?

[VRWC_minion]

Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

Oh yeah ? Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me, says the gay in the cramped elevator.

[urbanrepublican]

Thanks your post,

It

1) Got me p*ss#d off.

2) Inspired me to e-mail the editor of my local paper, The Cincinnati Enquirer the following.

"I was disappointed to see Justice Scalia's opinion poorly excerpted in an AP Wire story concerning the Texas sodomy law case that ran on your Website June 26, 2003. There is a significant difference between the excerpt that ran in the story, Justice Scalia saying he has "nothing against homosexuals.", and the actual decision. Justice Scalia wrote: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."

Given the current attempts by a variety of interest groups to use political pressure to influence appointments to the judiciary, I feel that is very important that the decisions made by our highest court are reported in their full complexity. Your article created the impression that Justice Scalia was implying something unintended by his decision.

At least, please remove the period from the quotation appearing in this article."

3) Quit lurking and register on Free Republic.

[urbanrepublican]

My previous post should read "Thanks for your post,"