Text of Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinion [to paraphrase, "epitaph for Christian civilization"]

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[WOSG]

Scalia is true to the text and spirit of the Constitution.

Those who try to impose post-sexual-revolution mores on a legal heritage and Constitution developed in a completely different environment are the blind ones.

[Arkinsaw]

If anything, the Supreme Court made this decision because they knew they were on the winning side..when it came to the democratic process.

That is not their call to make. It is not their duty, and they have not been delegated the power, to short-cut the democratic process or make decisions based on what they THINK the people want or need.

[Jorge]

Scalia is right when he points out that this decision could lead to:

1. The Boy Scouts having to allow homosexuals.

Why should the idea that we don't want the sex police monitoring and arresting adults for what they do in their private bedrooms.... mean the Boy Scouts or any other group must rewrite their core beliefs and accept anyone into their private organization?

I'de say the opposite is true. It defends the right to private beliefs and values.

[spunkets]

The media won't give Thomas the credit for that either. It doesn't fit their agenda to paint him as a monsterous extremist and traitor.

[sarasmom]

They may think they are.
But who would have thought that sodomy would be decided by the SCOTUS as a constitutionally protected right?
I am not inclined to sue anyone for anything.
But I am extremely aggrieved that I wasted eight years of my life defending a country of deviants.
1234,not what I swore I was fighting for...
I was tricked into serving my country by the Feds.
They lied about what my sworn service meant.
As a veteran, I am a minority, so I think my minority status should carry some weight in this minority driven USA.
I demand reparations, punitive charges, and restitution of eight years of my life, tangible and intangible damages, related to illegal, coerced support for the unknowing destruction of the society I once swore (twice) to defend.
Breach of contract?
Who is John Gault?

[Polycarp]

As usual, you insult...

you're hyperventilating at me over this topic, as usual. To your credit, you didn't question my faith. But, as is your wont, you jump offside against anyone who doesn't buy every jot and tittle of what you write.

then play the victim over the smallest reply in kind.

Respond to the substance of Scalia's opinion, stop making this something between us, which it is not. Scalia has refuted your position that this is an inconsequential ruling about a "silly law" and that pisses you off, so you take it out on those pointing out Scalia's superb analysis.

[longtermmemmory]

they are used, in prostetution arrests, sex in restrooms. It was also used in divorce cases.

[Arkinsaw]

Why does the increase from 37 states to 50 states constitute an "epitaph for Christian civilization"?

That doesn't. What does is a few elderly people in robes making the determination for the other 13 peoples outside of the democratic process because they, and narrow interests, just want it to be so and doing so under color of law.

[Antoninus]

Please separate the distate that we share for the gay agenda, from the very real concept of our sovereignty over our property, including our labor and person.

So let me get this straight. If I went to my neighbor and signed a contract stating that I was willing to work for him 12 hours per day, 7 days per week for the rest of my life in exchange for an indemnity of $500 paid monthly to my family, you're fine with that, right?

[Polycarp]

Only in reply to ad hominem. Try to be objective in your armchair quarterbacking at least.

[sinkspur]

Putting this disapproaval into law is a statement that our society will not tolerate such behavior.

But our society DOES tolerate it, since the laws are not enforced.

Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity.

No it doesn't. There's as much, or more, homosexual sex as there's always been.

And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

Unenforced laws, as Clarence Thomas put it, are a waste of law enforcement attention, and are "silly."

[Jorge]

Citizens regularly repeal homosexual special rights statutes by referendum.

Give me some examples. They are EXTREMELY rare.

The supreme court are on the wrong side of the democratic process.

Wrong. Most states and most American are opposed to these sort of sodomy laws.

Consider why was this not voted on by the citizens of texas as a referendum or even by their representatives? Because the majority wanted and accepted the prohibition.

That's Texas. Their laws still express a minority opinion when it comes to arresting and locking up gays...and I bet the laws are out-dated even when it comes to the views of most Texans.

[Antoninus]

Why should the idea that we don't want the sex police monitoring and arresting adults for what they do in their private bedrooms.... mean the Boy Scouts or any other group must rewrite their core beliefs and accept anyone into their private organization? I'de say the opposite is true. It defends the right to private beliefs and values.

As many of the justices have demonstrated again and again, their rulings have nothing to do with consistency. They rule what they feel like and then justify it with a mish-mash of supposed precedents. Their rulings, however flawed, then become the law of the land -- bingo, bango. Rule by judicial fiat is kinda cool, ain't it?

[B Knotts]

I simply do not agree with Scalia's apolcalypticism.

Apocalypticism? I'd hardly characterize it as such. I think Scalia is being realistic and consistent. If the state has no rational basis to proscribe homosexual sodomy, it is hard to imagine what private behavior it can ban, and meet the Court's standard.

And contrary to how his dissent has been characterized by some here, I see nowhere in it where Justice Scalia says that he favors keeping such a law in place. He merely points out how inconsistent the majority is in their desparate effort to try to find a way to Constitutionally overturn Texas' statute.

I don't think this kind of thing is something that should be a matter for the law, but...I also think that this is something that should be decided by the state legislature, and the people of Texas, just as Justice Thomas said. That doesn't mean I don't find the behavior distasteful or reprehensible; I just think there are other, better ways of discouraging such things (unfortunately, the courts are rapidly dismantling those means).

[Skywalk]

Actually, yeah.

Except there should be a reasonable limit for contracts(lifetime would be indenturing) as contracts are necessarily backed up by the government. I'd recommend against it and frankly, almost no one would submit to such a deal, not at least without a rather easy way to exit the deal without penalty after a certain block of time passes.

[Arkinsaw]

The Court decides what is in front of it, nothing more.

Thats easy to say. But the court does use precedent to justify future decisions (when they want these days). Come back in ten years and tell me that this decision has not been cited in rulings all over the place.

If a case to overturn bestiality comes before it, I'd lay a considerable sum that it wouldn't even be accepted.

Well, the court can apparently do whatever it wants without trying to base things in precedent or law unless it just needs to in order to reach a desired conclusion. So you are correct that they could refuse to hear it. But if they DID decide to ever stop being hypocritical and inconsistent then this case would be cause for hysteria.

So, forgive me if I continue to pretend that the court actually behaves in a logical and consistent manner when thinking about the precedent this ruling sets.

Perhaps I should say instead that this decision provides a future cover for other wild social engineering projects by the court if they decide they need some cover.

[mfreddy]

In today's contxt you may have a case.

You didn't defend a country of deviants. You defended a country where freedom means we have to fight these fights.

Don't give up.

It may be embarrassing, but I can't recall who John gault is. Instead of doing a search and posting this in a few minutes, I admit I don't know.

[WOSG]

"Don't tell me you believe that any right not explicitly listed in the Constitution does not exist?"

Dont tell me you think that lame point has any bearing.
you really believe in the amorphous and impossible-to-define 'right to privacy' a right that was not even *mentioned* in any legal decisions until very Liberal Justices pulled it out of a hat in the 1960s??

There are certainly plenty of "non-fundamental-rights" not listed in the Constitution too. Right to beat your kid in the privacy of your own home; right to eat DDT; right to put cats in microwaves; right to marry your sister; right for Brad and Tad to get married together; right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

Sodomy is not a fundamental right. Never was, never will be. Justices on BOTH sides of the issue agreed with that point in this case!

[spunkets]

"our society will not tolerate such behavior."

Spokesman for the society?

"Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity."

It only energizes the tyrants amongst us.

" And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

That allows the tyrants to crack down on whoever they damn well please. How is that the rule of law. Seems more like the rule of tyrants and terrorists. Art though a mullah?

[B Knotts]

Our legal system is rapidly becoming a Napoleonic system, rather than common law-based, or so it seems to me. Stare decisis is only adhered to when it suits the politicians masquerading as judges and justices.