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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[WOSG]

Scalia backs up my point (or rather my point was just a recitation of Scalia's correct comment):

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosex-ual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the demo-cratic rules of engagement are observed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The State did not legislate sodomy, it legislated same-sex sodomy. Had the State legislated sodomy, this case would have never reached the Courts.

[Skywalk]

Let me apologize, WOSG.

My last post to you was far too harsh. I should have inserted third person into that, not directed it at you.

I agree about this ruling vs. the affirmative action ruling. Which is why I find these threads disturbing in that they have far more responses than the AA decision threads.

[Polycarp]

Wrong. See post 106. It was your invective that lead to my tongue in cheek 15 yards poke. Good nite, sink.

[Skywalk]

You're right, no disparagement of rights to public threatening with firearms, speech, etc?

Oh wait, we limit those too?

OK, just checking.

Why are you obsessed with public sex, dude?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why was it that some people in Texas could engage in sodomy without fear of the law, and others not?

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's the only herring left in his bucket.

[jwalsh07]

The State did not legislate sodomy, it legislated same-sex sodomy. Had the State legislated sodomy, this case would have never reached the Courts.

You must not have read the opinion, Kennedy made it quite clear that it din't matter and did not make an "equal protection" case. He made a case that could only be called breathtaking in it's scope, hubris and audacity.

Read it, it really is quite the power grab.

[Jorge]

Sorry Brian. You started down the insult road by calling me a jerk, and I know how easy it is for you to go nuclear.

His bark is worse than his bite.

It's amazing how weak and flimsy his responses are when you challenge his arguments head on.
This is why he resorts to name calling and personal insults.

[Sabertooth]

There IS an unalienable right to prostitution between consenting adults.

OK, and what is your basis for this position?

Is there also an unalienable right to public sex?

Why do you think you're painting me into a corner with your, um, socratic inquisition?

You've eluded my efforts artfully. I'm down to my last ditch efforts.

After you dispatch the questions above, I'll probably have to throw up my hands in surrender. We'll likely have to agree to disagree.

I thought it was implicit in all my posts that I view individuals as sovereign and therefore able to conduct themselves in ways they see fit provided it does not violate the rights of others.

It was, but I've been trying to discern to just what extent your conception of unalienable rights extends, and on what basis.

I appreciate your clarifications.

[Polycarp]

If you call Christian conservatives "homophobes" simply for doing what I do here then yes, you have automatically lost the debate.

Keep an eye on conservative columnists and Christian pundits over the next several weeks. You'll be surprised how quickly and widely Kopp's Corollary to 'Godwin's Law' for internet debate takes root.

[WOSG]

"Tell me how this "nutball SC decision" means "the Boy Scouts or any other group must rewrite their core beliefs and accept anyone into their private organization?"

Jorge, it is all part of the slippery slope ... it took the ACLU and NARAL years to get abortion-on-demand the law of the land. outlawing and overturning the Boy Scouts and destroying their traditional core beliefs is part of the "Homosexual agenda" of the radical left.


http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=8643&c=100

[Luis Gonzalez]

Interesting post from the National Review's forum:

Jonah:

As one of those social-cons dismayed at The Corner's sodomy law bashing, I can see the point. Here is another in your favor: Had we Neanderthals pushed our legislature to repeal the sodomy law we would have avoided writing the right to sodomize into the Constitution altogether. In essence, we played into their hands by overreaching and established a new right that will be used to justify and support all sorts of other rights to come in the future. Crap.

My response: This captures a big part of my argument about gay marriage and the all-or-nothing opposition. If conservatives don't provide an alternative arrangement -- civil unions of some kind -- then they are in effect gambling that in 5 years or 10 or at any other time in the future the courts or congress won't recognize gay marriage entirely. A compromise on the issue would/could preclude losing the argument entirely and having same-sex marriages as the law of the land. Such a compromise might also have the added benefit of doing the right thing.

[jwalsh07]

Why was it that some people in Texas could engage in sodomy without fear of the law, and others not?

Why, are there statistics showing an imbalance in sodomy? :-}

Come on Luis, read the opinion. It is far reaching, I mean really far.

Using Kennedy's logic, taking your money and giving it to me could indeed be a right that I accrue.

[spunkets]

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

This particular law is another silly law. It's been forced upon folks by those who think it's a good idea, regardless of what the driver thinks and desires. All that's important is the what the folks that get paid to do these things think. They are paid by folks that have plenty of time and money to spend on getting these things done. They are professional tyrants by choice. They make their living at it and it puts a smile on their face when they can force their vision upon the world. That is not valid law. It is not Freedom. It is arbitrary law issued by those who compete for power.

"Just so, would a rational, moral society treat deviant forms of "sex."

Morals are codes used to protect rights and to define what is right/wrong, good/evil. What is deviant sex is not covered by absolute moral codes. It is defined and covered by subjective moral codes that are not universal at all and are no more than personal preferences.

" We are no longer a rational or moral society.

Societies and groups do not have the capacity to think, therefore they can't be rational. Only individuals can be rational. In as much as more, or less, of the individuals in a society can do that, the society benefits. The only moral code that's worth anything is the absolute code and sex practices aren't covered.

"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."

There's no such thing as the me generation; it never existed. I'll get straight to the essence of what you desire. That is for your subjective morals to be forced upon those that won't willingly follow your wishes. The term "me generation" was contrived by the folks that were failing to gain the unquestioned obedience of their children. It's nothing more than an ad hominum attack used for effect. Your fixation and preoccupation with the sexual practices of a distinct minority of your fellows on Earth has caused you to go blind.

You've failed to note that your rants have historically given rise to vicious and unwarranted treatment of folks that will never see things your way and have never infringed upon your rights. You're not just teaching that homos are bad. You're teaching that they are evil and want the ability to punish them for what they do. You're not simply opposing homosexual behavior on a rational basis. You're on a tyranical crusade to crush them and anyone else that doesn't see things your way.

[WOSG]

Outlawing Sodomy is not 'unlimited Govt' by any stretch of the imagination.

Our nation universially outlawed sodomy 100 years ago when Government powers were far more limited than today!

[mfreddy]

I am a sinner. I have received the promise of eternal salvation but I am still a sinner.

Perhaps you are confusing anger with passion. I submit to you that many on this forum are very passionate and not as offended by each other's response as you might think. That does not suggest that things won't deteriorate because they usually do.

I was being sarcastic when I made my response and you gave me the benefit of the doubt that I did not deserve. I now realize by your response that you are very sincere and I apologize.

We are all subject to human failings.

I've got to go, I've been on here way too long.

God bless

[sinkspur]

It was your invective that lead to my tongue in cheek 15 yards poke.

Invective? What invective? "Hyperventilating" merits a return volley of "jerk" in your playbook?

And nothing you say is tongue-in-cheek, Doctor. I've learned that to my chagrin.

[Sabertooth]

We shall see I guess.

I thought we were doing the whole question and answer thing.

Will there now be no disparagement of the rights to prostitution or public sex?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Why, are there statistics showing an imbalance in sodomy?"

Actually, heteros probaly far outdistance gays in the practice of sodomy.