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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[WOSG]

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

It got somewhat close to be repealed in 1994 actually.
Openly gay legislator Glen Maxey spearheaded it.
Repeal failed because most Texans supported the law as it stood. That's the democratic process. As social mores have changed, the number of states outlawing sodomy have dropped from close to 50 down to around a dozen or so.


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

Luis, grab a clue. Only the supreme court can overturn a Supreme Court decision. Even if Cali passed a law outlawing abortion 149 to 1, Supreme Court would overturn it.
Who can protect the unborn in such a case?
Who can represent the will of the people to protect the unborn in such a case of judicial tyranny?

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

Redress venue of first resort: its the BALLOT BOX. Now I ask you: This Supreme Court ruling was WRONGLY DECIDED. Where do we go to seek *OUR* redress from the tyranny of the Judicial branch???

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Allowing sodomy for 97 percent of the population, while barring it for 3 percent cannot possibly be defended as a law designed to prevent or deter the immorality of sodomy. It was a law entirely constructed to stigmatize gay people. It had no other conceivable purpose. And when "morality" is simply a rubric under which to persecute a minority, then we don't really have the imposition of morality at all. We have the imposition of a prejudice." --- Andrew Sullivan

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Repeal failed because most Texans supported the law as it stood."

You mean the 97% who could engage in sodomy without fear of legal troubles liked the law as it stood?

[WOSG]

"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.

Ah, you dont work at a Fortune 50 company do you?

FR is not the public square or the whole culture. the former counter-culture wants to become the dominant culture, and knows far better than conservative movement how to impose its will. I noted cases where the power is a monpoly power if not yet a Govt law - eg the law school recruiting. if this happened to Liberals they'd scream "McCarthyism" and repression ... and they'd have a point.

Many things are imposed, if not by state or federal law (yet) to enforce the PC morality - a "diversity training" program here, a required college 'experience' there. It adds up to social conformity to the new imposed moral order. Check out the part about how they tried to politically indotrinate education students: http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/campus_culture/a0000264.html

[Jorge]

Ahh, yes. Polycarp has campaigned for YEARS that all adulterers, fornicators, and abortion-providers should be SHOT at STADIUMS as paid sporting events following convictions.

Ahhh,no. Polycarp has done no such thing.

If you're going to criticize him at least be honest about it.

Further, he has campaigned for removal of all locks from all doors so that he and his fellow travelers could simply walk into private residences and observe sexual activity.

Polycarp hasn't done this either...at least not that I know of. What a mean thing to say about him. You need to repent.

Get a life, Jorge. Take your meds and work at DU.

Take a reading class ninenut.

Then maybe you'll be able to articulate a halfway coherent response instead of this discombobulated nonsense.

[MHGinTN]

I applaud you, Jorge.

[wardaddy]

Me too!

[Jorge]

"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.

No.. you've completely missed my point. I wasn't arguing any constitutional point one way or the other.

Rather I was addressing the naivity of those who claim this is some sort of watershed decision regarding morality in American when in fact most states have already repealed sodomy laws.

[WOSG]

"...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.

Obviously, we have a failure to communicate ... here is your original Clintonesque emanation:

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

Numerous posts since have explained to you the falsehood of the above statement, given the numerous sodomy laws on the books at the time that covered same-sex sodomy. Same-sex sodomy in the 1800s got you jail time if caught. Then you falsely say that what you were saying was:

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

Okay, that's different kettle of fish. If you cant catch the distinction between the two, you really are lacking in logical faculties. Try rereading the responses to your posts and get up to speed on why they are different. and the insults are as pointless as your request: "Now, prove me wrong or go finish whatever it is that you're drinking." I've already refuted post 204 and other have many times. your latter, different statement, (yawn) what's your point? You are hankering to lock up heterosexual sodomites too?

[Jorge]

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.

I was and am still angry over the way gay activists intimidated advertisers to keep Dr. Laura off TV...however these things happen in America.

And I don't see how not being able to bust down bedrooms doors and arrest consenting adults for sodomy means nobody is allowed to freely and openly express their personal moral beliefs.

[Jorge]

sorry there are pleanty of cities and counties where the citizens have repealed homosexual rights classifications by referendum. By popular vote they pass.

I've only heard of a couple cases.

[WOSG]

"Rather I was addressing the naivity of those who claim this is some sort of watershed decision regarding morality in American when in fact most states have already repealed sodomy laws."

Jorge, true that Supreme Courts dont influence as much as reflect the moral state of the country.

But this is a watershed ruling in Judicial over-reach. The practical implications will go FAR BEYOND enforcement or (already barely enforced) sodomy laws. We just dont know what's in the Pandora's box yet.

Without Griswold, which seemed innocuous, there was no Roe.

"I wasn't arguing any constitutional point one way or the other."

Why are you on this thread then? I find it curious that 380 posts in - NOT A SINGLE POST HAS DEFINITIVELY DEFENDED THE INDEFENSIBLE: THE MAJORITY RULING.

And yet, we have many posts complaining about the 'complainers'.

[WOSG]

Perhaps not your intention, but the verbiage you used made it look like you were alleging that polycarp fell into the 'taliban' category.

[WOSG]

"I was and am still angry over the way gay activists intimidated advertisers to keep Dr. Laura off TV...however these things happen in America."

And these things happen too ... the squeeze is on against traditional morality:

http://www.antipas.org/news/news_2000/world_2000/gay_plunge.html


http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_4_a3.html

The university would be in chaos," warned Ivan Marcus, a Yale history professor, "if it bent over backward to accommodate everyone's sensitivities." The New Yorker 's David Denby quite agrees: colleges cannot "continue to humor every group's sensitivities." Are they referring, perhaps, to the antics of Yale's Bisexual/Gay/Lesbian/Trans-gender Cooperative? Making a case for defunding its African-American cultural studies house or its Latina/Latino cultural center? No, this September's crackdown on diversity came on the heads of five Orthodox Jewish students who had asked to be excused from Yale's requirement that they live in coed dorms--which they said offended their religious beliefs. As everyone by now knows, the administration denied the request. Diversity, it seems, ends where traditional morality begins.

[Clint N. Suhks]

And I don't see how not being able to bust down bedroom doors and arrest consenting adults for sodomy means nobody is allowed to freely and openly express their personal moral beliefs.

Umm...you don’t see the police busting down doors to find consensual incest, bestiality or consensual pedophilia either, do you?

[Thorondir]

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

Perhaps. It's a mortal sin either way, which you already know, as a Catholic. But there is a difference between natural sins of the flesh and the extremely wacked-out perversion of homosexuality. this is clear in the OT, the NT and in the laws of the Church. The great Pope Leo XIII even said, "Homosexuality is a sin so vile that even the angels of hell are repulsed by it."

that's a fairly powerful statement, that I have not seen made about anything else. Anyway, please excuse any possible typos, I can't see if there any because I am having a migraine and can hardly see the screen.

Dominus vobiscum

[Roscoe]

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

Administrative law. So now you've abandoned Elian in your defense of sodomy and as an apologist for judicial legislation.

Dr. Pilon tells NewsMax.com that Attorney General Janet Reno is "irresponsibly and astonishingly ignoring the clear requirements of United States immigration laws that provide that any 'person' shall be entitled to an full-fledged, evidentiary asylum hearing upon immigrating to the United States from Cuba."

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/17/103543

[Enough is ENOUGH]

Isn't the real issue here morality? In our PC driven society diversity taken to its extreme trumps morality. That's what they've been warning us against PC all along. I'm not surprised so many have become addicted to the PC kool-aide.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So now you've abandoned Elian..."

You are such an a**hole. I have done no such thing.

These are two distinct and separate causes, but there is one overall theme...freedom from oppression.

The people of Texas enacted a law that was unjust, they used their State government to legislatively support prejudice. They voted themselves absolved from the crime of sodomy, and persecuted the minority of its citizens for something they themselves could get away with scott free.

The hypocrite here is you, who while crying about the evils of sodomy, you turn a blind eye at the fact that 97% of the citizens of Texas could engage in it with impunity, placing themselves outside the laws of God and man, all the while calling the 3% who were criminalized for the very same act they regularly committ, perverts and degenerates.

Nice job Roscoe, promoting degeneracy in the majority of the people.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Numerous posts since have explained to you the falsehood of the above statement."

Then you should have had no problem whatsoever posting a law to prove me wrong...you did not.

"Same-sex sodomy in the 1800s got you jail time."

ALL sodomy got you jail time then, not exclusively same-sex sodomy.

You knew what I meant, they knew what I meant.

Stand there exposed as a liar.