Saturday, March 28, 2009

Barney Being Barney

Gay congressman Barney Frank accuses Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia of being homophobic and letting it interfere with his constitutional judgment.

Law Prof Ann Althouse disagrees.

Althouse and Scalia are right. Frank is wrong and just being himself.

It is he who is being anti-democratic here. He wants his cultural attitudes and values to be imposed on others from the altitude of the Supreme Court.

We guess that when you're partly responsible for a world-wide financial crisis by being in the protection racket of a corrupt quasi-government lending institution, it's better to change the subject.


Anonymous Bob said...

Gil -
The quote from Scalia in the article says that he thinks it's okay for states to criminalize private consentual homosexual acts. He completely ignores the equal protection part of the Constitution and turns a blind eye to discrimination.
It would be nice if you actually quoted any of Barney Frank's reasons. Here is part of it:
"My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity. In those two virulent dissents, Justice Scalia denounced the court majorities not simply for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation in cases involving political rights and the right to private consensual sex, but he also made it clear that in his view sex discrimination is not only permitted by the Constitution but is very much in society's interest because homosexuality deserves to be treated with not only disapproval, but legal disability."

March 28, 2009 at 7:49 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except, of course, that's not what Scalia said in his dissent. "Discrimination" is inherent in any law making process. We "discriminate" against drug users or those who have sex with underaged persons. We "discriminate" against those who want to marry their firsts cousins, etc.
The 14th Amdendment prohibits discrimination in lawmaking which denies a person their rights which were inherent at common law. There was never a "right" to engage in homosexual activity at common law nor is there a widespread beleif that homosexual sex is or should be 100% legal. That does not mean that states cannot afford higher rights to gays. It just means that the right to homosexual activities, in the opinion of Justice Scalia are not CONSTITUTIONALLY protected.

March 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Are the rights of inter-racial couples to marry protected under your distorted view of the constitution?
There's no "right" to engage in heterosexual active either is there?

Theres another quote from Scalia that shows he thinks it okay to discriminate because some (bigoted) people think that being gay is immoral and destructive. Scalia is siding with ignorance and homophobia. Scalia the one that is not a "neutral observer" as he puts bigots being uncomforable over the rights of gays.

"It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

March 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home