[Im Your Huckleberry]

Scalia is right. This case was brought to further the gay agenda.

Wait...watch.

[txzman]

Final nails in the destruction of this country. Sodom here we come.

[firewalk]

Bttt

[rwfromkansas]

And since there are no retirements announced, we are stuck with the same court for next year and the year after.

Damn.

I want those liberals to either croak (can't someone just die already?????) or retire.

[proud American in Canada]

"Texas legislators were within their rights to pass a sodomy ban, Scalia wrote for himself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. "

Of course they were.

Bump for Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist!

[EternalVigilance]

I would love to read Scalia's entire dissent, if anyone has it...

The Left, with their twisted worldview, is still firmly in control of most of our institutions, as this particular case illustrates so vividly once again.

Thank God for Scalia, Thomas and Renhquist...but we need a whole bunch more like em.

Of course, that won't happen until we force more true conservatives into the Senate.

It might also not happen if the RINOs end up calling the shots on filling vacancies, as they have on a number of other important matters.

We conservatives have sacrificed much for the GOP in the last decade. The number one prize for that labor is a conservative SC. It is worth expending every bit of our political capital to gain.

Too many forget that most of the Justices seated now were put there by Republicans.

Enough is more than enough. The blood of 40 million innocent unborn Americans cries out from the ground.

EV

[_Jim]

The court majority "coos, casting aside all pretense of neutrality," in describing the importance of sex in an intimate relationship, Scalia said.

Yeah, like in open, rampant bathhouse s*x -

- c'mon justices ... you can do better than this!

[Uncle Miltie]

Scalea should resign rather than provide color commentary for our new Ceasars.

[dennisw]

Reagan appointed Scalia. Correct? Old school all the way!

[BikerNYC]

Scalia and many other conservatives believe that the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling allowing legalized abortion is a constitutional flight of fancy, because it relies on a general right to privacy that they do not find in the text of the Constitution.

Scalia made a couple of good points in his dissent but this one would be silly. The "text" of the Constitution says that "Congess shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." How, then, could he justify any law that restricts a person's ability to say anything?

[RAT Patrol]

Scalia scolded the majority for its willingness to reverse a controversial 17-year-old ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick

Funny how that word "controversial" never slips in when the ruling favors the liberal side. Nor would they title a liberal justice comments as "colorful."

[Ann Archy]

Sandra Day O'Connor is one disappointment after another....and that girly-man Souter.....disgusting.

END TIMES...it feels like end times.

[McGavin999]

There are no laws governing marriage that could not be duplicated in a contract. The major difference is in the religious recognition of marriage. There is no reason that gays can't cover any of their financial concerns with a signed and witnessed contract.

[dagnabbit]

Contact your congresscritter ASAP and demand he or she co-sponsor House Resolution 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment":

SUMMARY AS OF: 5/21/2003--Introduced.

Constitutional Amendment - Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution, or State or Federal law from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The ACLU is already gearing up against the ammendment saying "Don't write discrimination into the Constitution" - ad nauseum.

[Hal1950]

[Buck W.]

Logically, legalizing gay marriage would then lead to the acceptance and legalization of human/gerbil marriage.