Barney Frank’s Smack Down on Justice Scalia’s Homophobia: He Gives Proof
Uh oh! Tempers flaired on the Right after Barney Frank, one of “the gays,” said earlier this week that Justice Scalia was a “homophobe.” I know, this didn’t surprise anyone that has been paying attention, but now Barney’s real gone and done it. He gives very precise and specific reasons for calling him that. How about a few court decisions he’s made? How about his stance on homosexuality?
First off, here’s the clip of Rep. Frank calling Scalia a “homophobe.” (It’s a little slow loading up.)
Frank does an excellent job of searing Scalia’s ass with… Scalia’s own words! Here’s the examples Rep. Frank gives us, but you’ll have to read his article to get the full flavor.
JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER,
PETITIONERS v. TEXASON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
[June 26, 2003]
No. 02-102
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Lawrence vs. Texas was a landmark US Supreme Court case in which the court struck down the sodomy law in Texas, which was specifically targeted against homosexuals. Justice Scalia authored the dissent, joined by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas.
DISSENT – JUSTICE SCALIA
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. 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. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, et al., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD G. EVANS et al.
on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado[May 20, 1996]
In Romer v. Evans, the US Supreme Court ruled against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution which would have prevented municipal governments from taking action to protect homosexuals from discrimination. Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, with Justices Rehnquist and Thomas joining.
DISSENT-JUSTICE SCALIA
First, as to its eminent reasonableness. The Court’s opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of “animus” or “animosity” toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as un-American. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even “animus” toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of “animus” at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers…..
But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct, the fact is that the degree of hostility reflected by Amendment 2 is the smallest conceivable.
Oh, poor Scalia. Words will haunt you sometimes. Thank you Rep. Frank for being willing and able to stand up for yourself.
