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

SCOTUS ^ | Justice Scalia

[Antoninus]

Do you think there's a constitutional "right to sodomy"?

[pittsburgh gop guy]

"...this is not a federal issue, and the SCOTUS never should have heard the case. States should be free to regulate nonfederal issues, or not, as the populace of those states sees fit."

HA-BANG! You hit the nail on the head. But, instead of not hearing the case and issuing a liberal ruling, the Supremes decided to push the homo agenda and set it up so that gay marriage is acceptable, at least according to their ruling.

All you freepers that are happy with this ruling should ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE opinion of the majority, and the scathing dissent by Scalia. O'Connor's opinion is just plain nuts and goes against the majority in the Bowers v. Hardwick case - WHERE SHE WAS WITH THE MAJORITY!!!! And the majority ruling, while destroying stare decises vis-a-vis the Bowers ruling, mentions ROE and ACTUALLY STRENGTHENS ABORTION RIGHTS!!!! YEP!!! So all you suckers saying this is a good ruling - read the damn thing!!!!

Scalia is right when he points out that this decision could lead to:

1. The Boy Scouts having to allow homosexuals.
2. Gay marriage.
3. The end of the U.S. military's not allowing gays to serve.
4. Legalized prostitution.

Before any one defends this decision - READ IT! And absorb what Scalia is saying... and predicting. And ask yourself, were there really the "SEX POLICE" going around and breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night and arresting them for having sex with each other, or monkeys or whatever. The answer is no. That whole argument is just BS that was put out by the homo lobby.

This decision is the worst one since Roe v. Wade.

[sinkspur]

Indeed. Because he's the only clear thinker and real Catholic on the bench. Scalia is right. You, Deacon Sink, are woefully and disappointingly wrong.

Are you in favor of criminalizing homosexual behavior?

Not the foolishness on the books today, but really criminalizing it, with actual penalties?

If not, then you and I are in agreement, and you're hyperventilating at me over this topic, as usual.

To your credit, you didn't question my faith. But, as is your wont, you jump offside against anyone who doesn't buy every jot and tittle of what you write.

[Jorge]

Your words betray you.

What a phoney response. I asked you to show where I promote the homosexual agenda.

You can't.

The fact is I've posted numerous times that I am a Christian who believes 100% with the Biblical definition of homsexuality as a sin...and adultery..and lying and gossip etc.

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.

[Antoninus]

Hmmm...Won't SCROTUS now simply declare a Constitutional Marriage Amendment unconstitutional?

Well, assuming the constitution is still in effect, they can't. Such an amendment would become part of the constitution. Indeed, they'd have to defend such an amendment and turn away any laws that attempt to infringe upon it.

[Polycarp]

Its not my arguments you disagree with, its Scalia's.

And you have yet to refute any excerpts of Scalia's that I posted for you.

( Whistle: 15 yards, Sinky. Being a jerk.)

[longtermmemmory]

No they are not. Citizens regularly repeal homosexual special rights statutes by referendum. The supreme court are on the wrong side of the democratic process.

Consider why was this not voted on by the citizens of texas as a referendum or even by their representatives? Because the majority wanted and accepted the prohibition.

[WOSG]

"Also, I find it odd that the affirmative action decision threads did not garner NEARLY the responses that the sodomy decision did. "

Both decisions deviated from the constitution and are wrong.

What is twisted is the false allegation that defending the constitution from the absuve and false 'right to privacy' means you are in favor of jailing folks for sodomy.

A non-sequitor! Reread the Thomas concurrence to Scalia's brilliant Dissent.

it is quite clear: It is up to the Democratic process to decide these matters. Anything else is judicial tyranny.

[mfreddy]

You stated earlier that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that was created by God.

I submit to you that many aethiests engage in this "god created" union even though they don't believe he exists. They do this because society has agreed that it is in the interest of the continuation of such to endorse this behavior. This is because it leads to the reproduction that sustains it. It also strengthens the morals and values one learns by being part of a family unit. While it is far from perfect (hollywood is doing its best to f$%# it up) it is the bond that sustains us.

There is no natural reproduction in a homosexual relationship, and for good reason. The large intestine is not a reproductive organ.

Regarding your statement, "is this the way to express our moral convictions" the answer is yes. If we do not express our moral convictions, there is no purpose for laws.

By the way, it is a highly debatable point that we lose nothing by extending insurance benefits to homosexual couples (aids, etc).

It is an easy question to answer.

[Polycarp]

The fact is I've posted numerous times that I am a Christian who believes 100% with the Biblical definition of homsexuality as a sin...your throw the first stone homophobic hypocrite agenda..

As I said...

[Antoninus]

If a case to overturn bestiality comes before it, I'd lay a considerable sum that it wouldn't even be accepted.

Just as this one shouldn't have been. Indeed, they already looked at a case just like this a mere 17 years before and ruled opposite on it. Nothing changed in the interim except 17 years of homo-propaganda.

[WOSG]

"Frankly, leftists can cheer and conservatives can jeer or despair, but I'd call this ruling a stealth victory for reigning in the power and scope of the federal government."

A branch of the Federal Govt - the courts - overruled a state law. In NO WAY did it restrain federal power!

[sinkspur]

And ask yourself, were there really the "SEX POLICE" going around and breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night and arresting them for having sex with each other, or monkeys or whatever. The answer is no.

Then what was the value of laws against sodomy? And why are you and Scalia so frantic because some unenforced laws are no longer in effect?

[Polycarp]

Sink, since you refuse to address the substance of Scalia's opinion as I have excerpted it for you, could you at least respond to someone else's post, like that of pittsburgh gop guy in post 82 above? Thanks.

[sinkspur]

Being a jerk

What's next Brian?

Your anguished regret that I'm a member of the Catholic Church?

I'm not going any further with you. You can't keep a civil tongue in your head on this subject, and you ratchet up the rhetoric with each post.

Good night.

[spunkets]

"Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization."

Scalia's dissent is an exposition of the court's err and bogus opinion. Just how do you find this an epitaph for Christian civilization? You do know that the SCOTUS is not the guardian of Christianity right?

[Antoninus]

There is a difference between disapproving of homosexual acts and considering them sinful, and enshrining that disapproval into criminal law.

Nonsense. Putting this disapproaval into law is a statement that our society will not tolerate such behavior. Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity. And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

What the Supreme Court has done is open Pandora's Box which will emit all manner of filth and evil. Rick Santorum was absolutely right.... Just watch.

[Polycarp]

And why are you and Scalia so frantic because some unenforced laws are no longer in effect?

You couldn't have possibly read and considered Scalia's dissenting opinion and still ask a BS question like this Sink.

So I just conclude you're being disingenuous. Or worse...

[Camber-G]

Ad hominem

[B Knotts]

I think you're right, but I doubt it will be achieved.

I'm not so sure...they laid the groundwork today for such a case. If the state has no "rational basis" for prohibiting homosexual sodomy, how can it possibly have a "rational basis" for prohibiting gay marriage?