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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[WOSG]

"One of the most important things about understanding the world around you is not lying to yourself,"

physician, heal thyself!

Sodomy was a common law crime for centuries in England, and was practically universally outlawed in the United States in the 1800s and early 1900s.

"If you don't want to understand the difference between outlawing sodomy for all, and outlawing it for some, then you just don;t want to understand."

It was outlawed for all during this whole time.

[WOSG]

B-chan, nomenclature issue: As a Burkean Conservative, I can pass as a classical Liberal, these are shades or subpopulations of the same species.

Issues like this strain the boundaries of the American Conservative philosophic construction: We need to believe in FREEDOM *AND* CIVILITY. Each supports the other. Freedom, properly construed, frees us to create and build a social and moral order of voluntary associations. Those associations and allegiances maintain the Civic Order.
American Conservatives defend *freedom* because that is the 'tradition' we want to preserve!

The alternative is socialism, repression, autocracy, etc.

[WOSG]

And when they contradict each other, you show your colors by the side you choose, again and again and again."

Alas, they dont conflict.

Scalia makes it ABSOLUTELY PLAIN: This decision HAS NO BASIS IN LAW OR IN CONSISTENT CONSITUTIONAL INTEPRETRATION. It was simply Judicial rule-making on the fly. They squashed a law they didnt like.

This is no different from the "Judges" in Tehran squashing democracy *they* dont like.

Why would anyone side with the Mullahs of Judicial activism here instead of siding with democracy?

Someone please tell me: WHO IS REALLY TRYING TO IMPOSE A "THEOCRACY" OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HERE?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sodomy was outlawed for everyone, there were no exclusive same-sex specific anti-sodomy laws until the 1970's.

We "heteros" wanted to enjoy sodomy, we just didn't want homosexuals to.

Learn to read.

"It was outlawed for all during this whole time."

Wrong.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself witrh the case before posting opinions on the decision.

[WOSG]

Massive strawman alert!

"Freedom permits folks to make their own choices."

True.

" Fundamentally the only valid limits regard the rights of others."

False, does not follow.
The libertines of the world have messed with your head, and let you on to think that all sorts of deviant and dangerous activity lives on the same moral plane as your need to survive, protect your property, and defend yourself and your family. The State has a legal right to regulate activity to maintain the civil order. The state can take away your freedom (eg the draft) solely to protect itself.

In a just Free Republic, there are limits of that power,
but it is certainly a mistake to make the simplistic statement you do.

" When those are imposed, there is only authoritarian tyranny."

way too black and white. limiting freedom via regulation of lewd sex acts is not *authoritarian* in a democratically-run community, like the Republic of Texas.
Sodomy is not a natural right, although some may like it to be so.'tyranny' is an imposition on our Natural Rights, but this does not fall into that category.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

No, you all don't get it.

In Texas, sodomy is perfectly lawful for heterosexual couples.

If what you said had been the case, this case would have never reached the SCOTUS.

Best familiarize yourself with the case before posting.

As a matter of fact, I'll tell you just how badly YOU DON'T get it.

There has not been one of you that has had the gumption to stand up and speak against the Texas law.

If sodomy is in fact an afront to God, why aren't you all screaming about the legalization of it for 97% of the population of the State of Texas?

I would venture to say that Our Maker is every bit as angry at heterosexual sodomites as He is at homosexual ones.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...your the guy who is claiming that 100 years ago there were no sodomy law..."

Put down the booze and read more carefully, I never said that.

What I am saying is that there were no same-sex exclusive sodomy laws in the United States until the 1970's.

Now, prove me wrong or go finish whatever it is that you're drinking.

[WOSG]

I don't want a law that banned all sodomy, 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.

All laws banning sodomy in general - and they were numerous and legion in the US up until the 1960s - perforce banned same sex sodomy, which is just a subset category.

So what is your *point*? ... you think same-sex sodomy was un-enforced? ...

When the Missouri Territory was organized in 1812,1 it received all laws of Louisiana.2 The Louisiana sodomy law in force that it received used the common-law definition and established a penalty of life imprisonment. http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/missouri.htm

[WOSG]

" Now, you keep calling me a liar"

"That would be because you are lying."

LOL! His original statement is Clintonesque! serpenthead would be proud at his disingenuous sophistry. :-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are all hypocrites.

Not one of you has a problem with the lifting of twe ban on sodomy for the remaining 97% of the citizens of Texas.

Once again, show me a same-sex exclusive anti-sodomy law enacted prior to 1970. That Louisiana law is not same-sex specific.

Like the rest of the hypocrites, you want to protect YOUR right to sodomy, and deny it to others.

[Jorge]

"Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays"

you mention 'drama queen' hysteria and you say THIS???!?

Huh? Unlike those who are sounding the alarm about this ruling as if it is the doom of America....I AM NOT running around claiming we are about to turn into a Muslism fundamentalist state.

[WOSG]

We have over a 50% divorce rate in this country, unmarried teenage girls are giving birth to fatherless babies at a rate that has forced some schools to offer day care services in order to keep them in school. We cohabitate like there's no tomorrow, fornicate to the point where virgins are considered to be an oddity.

Luis: Wake up call! Who are fighting on the front of the above issues? Traditionalist! Who is out there making it worse? The *same* people and the same forces that want to impose gay lifestyles as an equivalent lifestyle, want to create gay marriage, are out there trying to squash abstinence education and moral values in schools and in institutions (eg boy scouts), want to undermine those upholding traditional values.

Meanwhile those making the case day in day out for moral values in everyday lives are attacked as homophobes - case in point is DR LAURA SCHLESINGER. She has done more than any other person in the US to raise awareness and attack *those very problems* you mention. She has attacked wanton divorce, she coached people through making the moral choice, she is out there Is she praised? Nope. She was ignored until some choice comments about sexual deviancy of the gay lifestyle got her pilloried as a 'homophobe'. let's be honest, we all practically are deep down live-n-let-live about this issue, it's how far particular moral and aesthetic sensibilities have to be repressed to accept this activity in the cultural/social realm as a 'norm'. Moynihan called it 'defining deviancy down'. It's not about whether sodomy will occur or not - it's about whether moralists will have the freedom to call it "immoral". You want hypocrisy? Those who attacked Dr Laura for her 'insensitive' remarks claim to want 'tolerance' but they are VERY INTOLERANT of any attitude that opposes them. Sensitivity and tolerance are a one-way street for these folks. Now I ask you: Whose side are you on? The side of those who want to stand up to divorce, illegitimacy, trashy behavior by teenage girls and boys, or those who think all of the above - and sodomy and 'if it feels good it's okay' sexual mores - should be 'accepted' on the same moral plane as fidelity to family values and marriage vows. The fetish with homosexual 'acceptance' is having huge negative consequences for sexual mores in the next generation. the radicals wouldnt have it any other way, for their agenda is far bigger than the 2% of us who are homosexuals.

[WOSG]

wow a 14-year old retarded boy and its not homosexual statutory rape because of this ruling. even with this ruling the mind boggles ...

Actually, no it doesnt. The evil can be expected to flow from the good intention. The USSC started talking about the "sanctity of marriage" when it started down the path that led to 14 year old *girls* getting abortions on demand without parental consent.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We all have the freedom to call it immoral, we have the freedom to call it a sin.

What we don't have the freedom to do is to say "it's a sin and it is immoral for them, but not for me", and that's what same-sex exclusive anti-sodomy laws do.

This door was opened by ALL OF US, my conservative friends fornicate and cohabitate every bit as much as my Liberal friends do, they always have.

This door was opened decades ago, when those of us who are traditionalists today, practiced making love and not war, it continued thorough a disco haze, and now it's come back to slap us in the face as we get older.

It's the law of unintended consequences, we opened the Pandora's box of "sexual revolution" without thinking about the possibility that everyone would want to revolt right along.

Sodomy, fornication, and adultery are all sins in the eyes of Our Maker, and there were laws against every single one of those sins in the America of the Founders, note that we have lifted all criminality from those things which we enjoy, and that the only remaining laws address sodomy, and in an increasing number, only same sex sodomy.

If sodomy is a sin, and it's a destructive influence on society, then why are you not raising Holy Hell about the decriminalization of it for 97% of the people of Texas?

[Jorge]

Since when do gay activists own the term "homophobe"? And why should I have to agree with their definition of the term before I use it?"

If you use a term differently from everyone else who uses it, you will be gibbering incomprehensibly to the rest of us.
hmmmm.... that explains it.

So unless I use the homosexual definition of homophobe it will be uncomprehensible..... to those of you who can only think in the homosexual-mind set?

What are you trying to say? If you're coming out of the closet here on the FR message boards...truthfully I am not interested in hearing about it.

But the fact remains...I DO NOT beleive the gay definition of homophobe..and that is NOT how I use the term.
And that's all you need to know to understand my posts.

[WOSG]

Not one of you has a problem with the lifting of twe ban on sodomy for the remaining 97% of the citizens of Texas.

Luis, you are wrong: I dont have a problem with lifting the ban on the remaining 3% *or* reimposing it on the other 97%. Whatever works. I just want this decision to be appropriately made by the people of Texas and their elected representatives, not the Supremes in Washington, DC!

"Like the rest of the hypocrites, you want to protect YOUR right to sodomy, and deny it to others." Uh no. I have never in my entire life engaged or wanted to engage in such activity. Go ahead, tell me I'm missing something wonderful.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I just want this decision to be appropriately made by the people of Texas and their elected representatives, not the Supremes in Washington, DC!"

The people of Texas enacted the Law, whatever makes you think that this 97% would have lifted a finger to change a thing?

Let's say that overturning Roe v. Wade could only be done by the California legislature, what would be the chances?

Citizens must have a venue where they can go and seek redress from their State government.

[WOSG]

"We all have the freedom to call it immoral, we have the freedom to call it a sin."

No we dont, not really.

If I said that at work, I'd get fired for showing 'lack of sensitity to the diverse workforce'.

If a law firm said that and meant it, they'd be banned from recruiting at practically every law school in the country.

When Dr laura said it, she lost a TV contract.

Wake and smell the coffee, Luis. The right to say homosexuality is wrong is a disappearing right in our culture. it is very close to making into law (eg sexual harrassment). Look north to canada where it already is enshrined in law.

And of course, just as many guilty male philanderers are 'pro-choice' on killing the fetus to protect the consequences of their own actions, we have certainly a reaction to the traditionalist in supporting the 'gay lifestyle'. my, if they go after homosexuals they could just go after the heterosexual wild ones. So the cause is buttressed by those sho secretly want moral standards in the culture degraded so they wont feel so bad about their own behavior. Again, that is Moynihans' "Defining deviancy down".

I cant fault the Homosexual lobby at all for taking a narrow and self-interested agenda and spinning into a 'civil rights' cause celebre by anti-moralists across the spectrum. Politically brilliant!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No we dont, not really."

Oh please!

I can show you a hundred thousand posts or more in FR doing just that.

"If I said that at work, I'd get fired..."

Work is not the place for you to do that, but regardless, I've said something akin to that, and I wasn't fired.

What you are arguing about is against the right of OTHERS to freee speech as well, and to boycott those things we oppose.

We do it all the time.

[general_re]

But does not the 9th Amendment mean ANYTHING?

Actually, that's the problem with the Ninth. It's so vague that it can mean virtually anything you like. How do you distinguish between what is and isn't a right - particularly one that isn't already covered under the first eight amendments - under the Ninth Amendment?