Scalia: 'Why no ancient Greek gay marriages?'

WASHINGTON – The most dramatic moment in a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage Tuesday morning came after the first attorney had wrapped up her argument. “Gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God,” suddenly screamed a protester in the courtroom.After continuing his protest, the man was escorted from the court room.

Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “That was refreshing, actually,” causing loud laughter to ripple through the courtroom. Scalia’s approval of ancient wisdom echoed his previous referral to the ancient Greeks and Romans to argue against government sanctioning of same-sex marriage.

The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.

Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays. He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage, if it were true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.

When she said yes, Scalia continued, “So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?” Adding, unless she considered Plato prejudiced...

The following fro mthat article says basically what I’ve just been saying- Gay people are trying to get homosexuality delisted as immoral, and this is the whole crux of their attack on marriage-

“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

The liberals o nthe court are arguing, apparently the following

[[sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,”]]

IF that is their argument, then you MUST allow ALL DEVIANT forms of sexual gratification legal status

The liberals o nthe court go on to declare

[[Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. ]]

This is a bogus disingenuous argument which they should know better- Sterile heterosexuals are engaging in a MORAL union, NOT an IMMORAL union when they get married- moral unions ARE allowed- IMMORRAL Unions are NOT allowed- which is why sons can not marry mothers or fathers or sisters, people can not marry corpses, people can not marry animals

The article you cited clearly is trying to get homosexuality off the list of immoral acts, and they are using absolutely asinine arguments to do so- and they should be ASHAMED of themselves for trying to be judicial legislators instead of objective upholders of the law!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.