Skip to main content

View Diary: Here's Scalia again, out schlepping his book, comparing morality of gays to morality of murderers. (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Someone above mentioned Lawrence v. Texas (7+ / 0-)

    where he piously proclaimed that he wasn't anti-gay, and he'd be glad to abide by the will of the majority should it change the definitions of marriage (which wasn't an issue in that case).

    Now that we have had several states enact marriage equality, Scalia has his chance to prove it.  We'll see if he can square up his opinion in the Obamacare case with the supposed constitutionally of DOMA.  

    Look for a Ringling Brothers level of legal contortionism on this one.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:57:49 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The question of whether the Constitution (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, gizmo59, SilentBrook

      guarantees a right to marry someone of the same gender is a completely different question from whether a state should enact laws guaranteeing that right.  

      The Constitutional question is whether states can do what the majority of their citizens want on this issue, or whether the 14th Amendment took away the ability of the states to do what the majority of their citizens want, if what the majority wants is what the right calls "traditional" marriage only.  

      If you think that the Constitution leaves the question up to the states, and doesn't (through the 14th Amendment) take away the ability of the states to reach their own answers, then you address the issue of whether a state SHOULD enact such laws. That's what Scalia is saying when he said in Lawrence v. Texas that he has no issue with such change happening through "normal democratic means."    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site