Scalia's basic argument can be stated this way: If laws against
homosexual conduct are unconstitutional because they are rooted in moral
disapproval, then by logical extension moral disapproval is an
inadequate basis for any law, even one forbidding something as heinous
as murder. Reduced to the absurd, the argument that moral disapproval is
not sufficient grounds for a law means that there can't be laws against
homicide. It's a logical, if abstract and not terribly helpful, line of
inquiry.
But the reality — and perhaps this is what so dismayed [Duncan] Hosie — is
that the Scalia opinions in question bristle with hostility toward
homosexuality and homosexuals. No, Scalia didn't say in his 1996 opinion
that "homosexual conduct" was "reprehensible," but his sympathy for
those who hold that belief was palpable. (In the same opinion, he
referred to "the disproportionate political power of homosexuals.") In
his dissent in the 2003 sodomy case, he accused the majority of
embracing "the so-called homosexual agenda."
You can read the full article HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment