![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eruthrosQuotes from Antonin Scalia, dissenting opinion, on Lawrence v. Texas (in which two men argued that anti-(homosexual)-sodomy laws are a violation of privacy, while the state of Texas argued that anti-homosexual-sodomy laws were necessary to protect marriage and kids, and that privacy should be restricted to married heterosexual couples). Most of the court (6-3) came down pro-privacy for consensual sex. Yay!
Scalia worries that the Supreme Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" but, he says, he has "nothing against homosexuals." This decision, tho, is "a massive disruption of the current social order," and "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 ... They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." Yah? Lots of people didn't want to associate with black folks or let their kids go to school with black kids, to protect themselves and their lifestyles from those dangerous, immoral, blah blah etc., black folks. And the Supreme Court made them do it anyway.
He claims that this law is not discriminatory because it "applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." Um, okay, but I kinda think it targets homosexual people more, you know? (It's okay: you can be gay as long as you never have homosexual sex.)
And my personal favorite quote: "I do not know what 'acting in private' means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage." (Is he familiar with the porn industry, one wonders?)
In other news, Pansy Division is playing Saturday night at 10 pm at Bottom of the Hill. With material from their new album. And I'll be moving out that day. Sigh.
Scalia worries that the Supreme Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" but, he says, he has "nothing against homosexuals." This decision, tho, is "a massive disruption of the current social order," and "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 ... They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." Yah? Lots of people didn't want to associate with black folks or let their kids go to school with black kids, to protect themselves and their lifestyles from those dangerous, immoral, blah blah etc., black folks. And the Supreme Court made them do it anyway.
He claims that this law is not discriminatory because it "applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." Um, okay, but I kinda think it targets homosexual people more, you know? (It's okay: you can be gay as long as you never have homosexual sex.)
And my personal favorite quote: "I do not know what 'acting in private' means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage." (Is he familiar with the porn industry, one wonders?)
In other news, Pansy Division is playing Saturday night at 10 pm at Bottom of the Hill. With material from their new album. And I'll be moving out that day. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-26 07:38 pm (UTC)