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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[Jorge]

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.

Well it doesn't make any difference now because they did.

[Skywalk]

It seems to me there IS a right to something AKIN to privacy, if not the way some would define it.

If you are to be secure in your papers, effects and property that necessarily obligates a "respect of privacy" by the government. Now, you don't have a right to an all-inclusive privacy from uncomfortable intrusions(say paparazzi) because they are not agents of the State.

If you do NOT have a right to privacy, then you apparently do not have a right to be secure in your papers, etc nor do you have any rights that the BoR does not mention.

But then that ignores the 9th.

[Antoninus]

Sorry Sinky, I simply can not comprehend your position on this matter. The fact that, as a deacon of the Catholic Church, you are here publicly supporting the idea of taking sodomy laws off the books is scandalous. This act will certainly do nothing to help bring our brothers and sisters afflicted with same sex attraction back to Christ.

Indeed, it's likely the homo community is "celebrating" in their own unique ways tonight. If the overturning of this law meant nothing, why would they celebrate?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I love the logic that since all men and all women are prohibited from committing sexual intercourse, there is no equal protection issue.

I guess we could enact a law banning all Jewish religious ceremonies, and argue that the law is not unconstitutional because it equally bans gentiles and Muslims from performing Jewish religious ceremonies.

[Jorge]

Because he's the only clear thinker and real Catholic on the bench.

...as I said.

[WOSG]

"But because I don't believe in your throw the first stone homophobic hypocrite agenda..you therefore want to label me as a promoter of the gay agenda. Incredible."

Jorge, your reasoning is abysmal. Just like the majority decision here. You are making a false dichotomy.

Reread Justice Thomas' statement. You can oppose the merits and value of sodomy laws and still recognize that they are constitutional. Even if you oppose outlawing sodomy, you should be very concerned by this court's extreme and faulty decision.

As for throwoing the word "homophobic", its funny, but your statement that you think homosexuality is a sin is EXACTLY what the Homosexual Agenda calls "homophobic". Why are you using the words of their agenda if indeed you dont support it? "Homophobia" is a mythical content-free term!

[Sabertooth]

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

Of course not. Do you know what types of unenumerated rights actually do exist?

Unalienable rights.

And if you read ALL of Thomas Jefferson's writings, you'd see he had some bizarre ideas about how to cure homosexuals. Uh, you really want to take him up on those 'treatments'(some would call it torture?)

Doesn't matter, since the relevant point is that he clearly didn't believe that there is an unalienable right to buggery.

On what basis do you believe that there is?

[Arkinsaw]

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.

We have a parade of narrow interests who do not believe that their ideas can be successful in the arena of ideas OR do not wish to expend the energy and time to convince the American people OR do not trust the American people to accept worthwhile change OR are attempting to undermine faith in the system as a whole and have found that they can short-circuit the system by influencing the appointment of activist judges who can throw out all legal tradition and act under color of law in favor of the narrow interests.

[Polycarp]

I'm right because...you're a Nazi

I'm right because...you're a HOMOPHOBE

Throwing around the term "homophobe" in a debate is the same as having recourse to terms related to Nazi Germany. Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.

I recommend all conservatives adopt and strictly enforce this.

[WOSG]

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?

Just off the turnip truck eh ... in case your havent noticed, there was a New Jersey nutball SC decision that said just that! Your faith in 'private beliefs' is woefully mistaken, when scalia PROVED THE COURT WAS HYPOCRITICAL - in Casey, they relied on stare decisis, here they throw it out; they explicitly rule out sodomy as a fundamental right, but undermine such thinking by attacking 'discriminatory' beliefs. In this ruling, the majority is talking about this viewpoint of the Boy Scouts as "discriminatory". It's part of the slippery slope ... The bottom? Go where the Canadian's have gone: Gay marriage and abolition of any distinction. bye bye marriage as between man and woman.

[Antoninus]

Art though a mullah?

Yawn.

We have plenty of such laws on the books. The seatbelt law is one. It's not a primary offense, and the cops can't hunt down non-seatbelt wearers, but if you are pulled over for running a red light, they can nail you if you aren't wearing your seat belt.

Just so, would a rational, moral society treat deviant forms of "sex." We are no longer a rational or moral society. The "Me" generation is now in power, to the chagrin of the rest of us, and they intend to do as much damage to the republic as possible on their way through.

[sarasmom]

You must read "Atlas Shrugged".A.Rand.
If you ever thought Stephen King was a good horror author,check out this tome.
I have not slept a single night peacefully since...

[Skywalk]

On the basis that you don't own me, nor does the State own me.

If the actions I take are objectionable to you, that is not foundation for imprisoning me or sanctioning the use of my sovereignty over my person. I feel the same way about any act that does not directly violate your rights.

These laws are not only stupid, but they were wrongfully applied in the Lawrence case. No one was really arrested for that crime, but the JBT who was there for something else, decided to arrest them for something.

Let me ask you, does sodomy of any kind(hetero,homo,oral,anal) violate your rights when conducted out-of-sight and between competent adults?

[Arkinsaw]

Even if you oppose outlawing sodomy, you should be very concerned by this court's extreme and faulty decision.

Whatever anyone thinks of the particular issue here or how much they favor or disfavor the results, EVERYONE should be concerned about the hijacking of the court, its activism, its short-circuiting of Federalism and the democratic process.

But, some here will just have their eyes glaze over and focus on "perversion" or "Godly" or "unenforced laws" or "privacy" when those things have nothing to do with what has happened to our Supreme Court, our checks and balances, our Federalism, and our Democratic processes.

Even if you cheer this decision you should fear the power that can reach it on a whim.

Even if you hate the issue that was decided you should instead focus on how the issue was decided under color of law and what it portends for the future.

[Sabertooth]

On the basis that you don't own me, nor does the State own me.

If the actions I take are objectionable to you, that is not foundation for imprisoning me or sanctioning the use of my sovereignty over my person. I feel the same way about any act that does not directly violate your rights.

Is there an unalienable right to public sex acts between consenting adults?

[WOSG]

"Sorry Sinky, I simply can not comprehend your position on this matter. The fact that, as a deacon of the Catholic Church, you are here publicly supporting the idea of taking sodomy laws off the books is scandalous. This act will certainly do nothing to help bring our brothers and sisters afflicted with same sex attraction back to Christ."

I can. I'm not sure why it follows that you would have to support outlawing all matters of morality. Adultery is legal too, so is lying (under day-to-day circumstances). Which is not a vice?

OTOH, the other extreme "you cannot legislate morality" is a total and utter canard. Every act of legislation is an act of enforced morality, and in most cases, it does 'work'.

[Skywalk]

You do know tha the slippery slope argument is an invalid logical tactic, right?

Therefore you CANNOT compare beating a child(I assume beating and not spanking is what you meant) or put cats in microwaves or bestiality to consenting adults.

And who cares who read what right into where?! Either you are for LIBERTY for all, or only some "privileges" for SOME.

By the way, right to free speech can be just as amorphous. Don't you have the right to advocate hate? ANd why is incitement to violence against the law? Didn't Jefferson believe we could revolt against the government? Why are there laws against promoting such?

The 2nd Amendment has also been weakened, long before 'liberals" started appearing on the bench. BUt I suppose you agree with all those 'precedents' too.

And Dred SCott wasn't a human, he was just property, you're right.

[Skywalk]

Does that really matter?

I have a right to own a gun, but I do not have the right to wave it around in public do I?

NEXT.

[mfreddy]

I wish a majority of the American people understood what a "litmus test" is and how it is applied by the democrapic party.


Repeat after me: WE ONLY WANT TO HELP YOU

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must have missed the question, so I'll repeat it for you:

"Let me ask you, does sodomy of any kind(hetero,homo,oral,anal) violate your rights when conducted out-of-sight and between competent adults?"

There, hope that helped.