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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[ninenot]

God...

You claim that He holds "freedom" to be the ultimate Good--to be preserved at all costs.

Cite, please?

[ninenot]

Your education must be complete. Congratulations.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are pathetic. You have lowered yourself to the level of the liars I encountered during the Elian affair.

I asked you to post my comments in support of the Courts legislating, you didn't because they do not exist, that means that you lied.

You want to talk about resemblances?

How about you and the Clinton DoJ lying to make a point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Scare tactics and red herrings.

This has nothing to do with pedophiles, nor will it ever have anything to do with pedophiles.

This is about consensual sex between capable adults, not raping children.

Children can't consent, nor can adults accept the consent of a minor.

[ninenot]

"I Am the Lord Your God. Have no strange gods (including "freedom" and YOUR will) before ME."

Is this unclear to you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Prior to 1960, every state had a law against same-sex sodomy."

Post one.

Don't post an anti-sodomy law, post an anti same-sex sodomy law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I asked you to list what law Reno asked the Court to discard, and post proof to that.

Because that was not a law, it was an INS procedure.

[B-Chan]

The destruction of the family (e.g. the current divorce/unwed mother/adultery rate, et al) is the product of the sexual "liberation" movement of the 1960s -- the opening battle of a cultural war between those who hold to the traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and those who advocate its destruction. Of course, people got divorces, had babies outside of marriage, and committed adultery before the 1960s, but in those days such things were considered shameful in the extreme by practically everyone, and were certainly never given the honor of being known as a "lifestyle".

The same was true of sodomy -- "the crime that dare not speak its name". The "liberation" of homosexuals from the constraints of law that began in 1969 and continues today is just the latest battle in the ongoing Culture War.

Ten years from now, when Christian parents are fighting to keep their pre-teen boys from having to attend the mandatory Man-Boy Touch Encounter "classes" at the local schoolhouse, the same people who support the normalization of sodomy today will be supporting the normalization of "transgenerational love". I can almost hear them now, arguuing that "differences in age are merely arbitrary distinctions", that "no one's rights are infringed by the act of two males of different ages having loving sex in the privacy of a Touch Encounter booth" and that "the only opponents of sex between adults and children are religious fanatics who wish to impose a Taliban-like theocracy on freedom-loving Americans".

Of course, long before things get to that point this religious fanatic will be either sitting in some re-education center pumped full of Happy Juice, or I'll be dead -- but you see my point.

[Technogeeb]

When the law stopped pertaining to all people, it became a same-sex sodomy law

Just because the Supreme Court demands we tolerate your advocacy of sexual perversion does not mean you now have license to pervert the English language. Your statement was "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago". That statement was a lie, because every state had a "law outlawing same-sex sodomy".

Now, you keep calling me a liar

That would be because you are lying. You have been given multiple opportunities to restate your original statement in a way that is technically accurate. You continue to refuse to do so.

Either put up a law banning same-sex sodomy prior to the 1970's, or I'll come by and wash your mouth out with soap.

Once again, every state in the US had a law banning same-sex sodomy before the 1960s. Every one. Your continued attempts to suggest otherwise and your silly threats cannot change that historical fact.

I don't want a law that banned all sodomy

Somehow I'm not surprised.

I want you to post a law banning same-sex sodomy that was in the books anywhere in the US prior to the 1970's

Once again, the sodomy laws of every state banned same-sex sodomy during those times. Several (such as Marylands's F 27-554) were ruled not to apply to non-commercial, private heterosexual conduct; thus those laws even fit your new, misleading definition ("When the law stopped pertaining to all people, it became a same-sex sodomy law.").

[spunkets]

"You claim that He holds "freedom" to be the ultimate Good--to be preserved at all costs."

Freedom is not an ultimate good. I don't even think the idea of "ultimate good has any meaning. Freedom is a condition of relationship among men. It is a gift from God. The ideas of good and evil are determined by referencing what is to be judged to the absolute moral code,(Matt 22 below and Moses to start) that protects life and rights. Freedom in itself is good, because it protects the nature and life of men and allows all to be free from the coercion of others, including fools, satin and those that are like him. See #323 When you do, replace the word God with man. ( nobody's perfect)

""I Am the Lord Your God. Have no strange gods (including "freedom" and YOUR will) before ME."

Freedom is a condition as above, not a god. My will is not a god either. God is the one quoted in the first 4 books of the NT. God summarized the 10 here, He said, Matt22:37-40
Jesus replied: " Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

In order to love someone, who do you go to to know them? Is it not the one you're interested in? Why would I go first elsewhere, when the one I'm searching for stands in front of me? He said, no one knows the Father, but though Him(Jesus). That's where I go to know Him. Moses, Paul, Ignasius, they're all men. All I would learn by going to them is who they are, not who God is, because I ignored what God said and went to learn of Him from men.

[Technogeeb]

Don't post an anti-sodomy law, post an anti same-sex sodomy law

Now it appears that you are not only a liar, but you are brain-damaged. It is impossible to post an "anti same-sex sodomy law" without posting "an anti-sodomy law". If you think you can win an argument just by demanding the impossible, then you are a fool as well as a liar.

Your original statement was "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago", and that statement is a lie. Stop trying to change the subject and admit what you said was false.

[dogbyte12]

Here is the rub. If you had a law prior to 1960, that said all people can not eat tomatoes, then after 1960 you had a law that said red heads can't eat tomatoes, there is a difference. There is no confusion here.

I shall be blunt. Anal sex was outlawed in this country. Period. Didn't matter who was involved. People didn't want heterosexual married couples who engaged in the practice to face jail time, so they narrowed the law to fit one group of people. That is fact. You can argue the merits. Perhaps you believe that it shouldn't be prosecuted between married heterosexual couples, but it doesn't change the fact that the law technically involved everybody until the newer laws.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You keep calling me a liar, but you have yet to post one shred of evidence to my lying.

Go ahead, post one single example of one single same-sex anti-sodomy law enacted anywhere in the United States prior to 1970.

I guess the evidence is mounting as who the clear liar truly is...is your nose growing yet?

I know exactly what I meant with my statement, and you know exactly what I meant by my statement, and most adults who frequent this site know exactly what I meant with my statement. But you jumped on the semantics surrounding my statement, and chose to parse words, and issue ad hominem attacks.

You know, that actually reminds me of someone...

[Technogeeb]

Here is the rub. If you had a law prior to 1960, that said all people can not eat tomatoes, then after 1960 you had a law that said red heads can't eat tomatoes, there is a difference. There is no confusion here

And if someone were to make a statement that said "There was not a single law outlawing red heads' eating of tomatoes in this country 100 years ago" under the assumed facts above, that statement would be false, because the law would have outlawed the eating of tomatoes by everyone, red heads included.

[Technogeeb]

You keep calling me a liar,

That's because you're lying. It's nothing personal.

but you have yet to post one shred of evidence to my lying.

Post 204. You stated: "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago"

That statement you made is a lie. When someone lies, like you did in post 204, the person asserting the lie is called a "liar", or someone who is "lying".

I know exactly what I meant with my statement, and you know exactly what I meant by my statement, and most adults who frequent this site know exactly what I meant with my statement. But you jumped on the semantics surrounding my statement

You have been given numerous occasions to re-state your assertion in a manner that is factually and historically correct. The original post could be excused as being merely a mis-statement of the facts if you would have corrected yourself. But even in your later posts, you still insist upon the truthfulness of that statement, which is quite clearly a lie. If your statement had instead been that "Not only was same-sex sodomy illegal in this country 100 years ago, but so was heterosexual sodomy" then that statement would be true. But you continue to insist that "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy", when the truth is that every state had laws outlawing same-sex sodomy, as well as other abominations.

You know, that actually reminds me of someone...

A self-portrait? It would explain your assertions...

[shhrubbery!]

The fact is most sodomy laws have been removed from the books or struck down by the courts in most states FOR YEARS now.

You've completely missed the constitutional point. Or rather, you're making the point for the side you oppose.

Under the system of federalism, states' legislatures make (and repeal) laws, not the Supreme Court. If Vermont voters want to legalize sodomy --and apparently a majority of them did-- then fine. Do it. But don't ram it down the throats of Texans. Or Utahns. Or Nebraskans.

But that's precisely what the Supreme Court has done.

Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays and shoots women in the head in soccer stadiums for acts of unfaithfulness.

Who's talking about establishing a fundamentalist state? Only you.

Furthermore, most are disgusted with the double standards of those who want to enforce sodomy laws against gays, but not heterosexuals.

Many laws are meant to be reflections the standards of the community. They were never intended to be "enforced" by police barging into peoples' bedrooms. Most of the arrests that brought about cases of this nature, e.g. Griswold and Bowers, were set-ups by liberals who wanted to foist their unpopular opinions on the rest of us via the courts -- i.e., by fiat, because they knew they couldn't get their way democratically. Lawrence reeks of the same kind of set-up too.

[ninenot]

Right. Thanks

[ninenot]

I don't think Luis gets it. Sodomy is sodomy. Same, opposite--bestial, whatever.

But he can't admit it--if he did, Scalia's argument would be logically impelling and he'd have to agree with US!

Never happen.

[ninenot]

Lawrence WAS a setup, as explained by a Texan on another thread. So was Roe, in its own way.

[WOSG]

"The Texas law did not narrow itself to only same-sex sodomy.
Please read the posts are tad more carefully."

gee, so O'Connor's whole decision was based on a false premise. WOW - STOP THE PRESSES! ... oh wait, your the guy who is claiming that 100 years ago there were no sodomy laws. lol.

Even pro-sodomy activists admit (and lament) a long history of legal repression of that act:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/texas.htm