Antonin scalia opportunity on gay
Op/Ed: Laws are more offensive than comments from Scalia
By Alex Caro
In December, a national controversy erupted over the offensiveness of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comparison of homosexuality with bestiality and murder. These comparisons reflect poor reasoning on Scalia’s part, but the comparisons themselves are not offensive.
Exactly a week after I had the opportunity to meet Scalia through my Justice and Law class, he gave a lecture at Princeton University. There, a lgbtq+ Princeton student named Duncan Hosie questioned Scalia for comparing homosexual sex with murder and bestiality in his dissents in the 1996 Romer v. Evans and 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decisions. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court governed 6-3 that laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy were unconstitutional.
Hosie did not object to Scalia’s line of reasoning, stating that the reasoning was both “defensible and legitimate.” Rather, Hosie asked Scalia to recant the remarks because he perceived them to be offensive. Scalia’s argument is not insulting, unless one fails to understand the nature of the argument. However, whether or not the argument is “offensive” is simply irrelevant to whether or not it is va
When the tweets came out that the US Supreme Court would hear cases challenging 1996’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and 2008’s Proposition 8, I paused. Most of the initial responses I saw seemed happy that the cases would have their day before the Supremes. My enthusiasm was tempered, however, and I can explain my reticence in two words: Antonin Scalia.
How I hate that he shares the same first name with one of my favorite composers.
It is hardly difficult to locate Justice Scalia’s standing on this issue. One depend on only go to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 decision that struck down sodomy laws across the country. Prior to Lawrence, a handful of states still had laws on the books which allowed police to proceed into your bedroom and arrest you for having consensual sex. Under those laws, “sodomy” had a pretty broad definition that basically meant anything except the procreative missionary position. So if the police went on a notify and into someone’s dwelling and found two guys having sex, any considerate of sex, the men could have been arrested and punished with fines or jail terms.
The Lawrence choice did away with such laws, but not with
Editor:
In February 2015, I had the unique opportunity to meet and talk with the late Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a man whose death earlier this month will have a drastic impact on the future of our country.
What struck me then and continues to guide my views of him to this afternoon was the utter brilliance with which he was able to support an argument and his views, even when my retain personal opinions as a gay law student could not have been more opposite.
As I browsed social media in the hours following the news of his passing, I was surprised by the posts from friends that ranged from “good riddance” to “ding dong the witch is dead.” The sheer outrage I was confronted with when I exclaimed that Justice Scalia’s death was a devastating decrease for the legal profession and the country again revealed an unfortunate side of our community’s continuous fight for equal rights. The vilification of those with views contrary to ours weakens our positions, ultimately creating an “us vs. them” mentality that is responsible for much of our country’s inability to work together to solve the problems facing us.
Societal progress will not be achieved by unde
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary copy of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary reproduce goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574
_________________
JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., PETITIONERS
14–556 v.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.;
VALERIA TANCO, et al., PETITIONERS
14–562 v.
BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al.;
APRIL DeBOER, et al., PETITIONERS
14–571 v.
RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al.; AND
GREGORY BOURKE, et al., PETITIONERS
14–574 v.
STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit
[June 26, 2015]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, withi
Skip to main content
More from the National Constitution Center
Constitution 101
Engage in deep thinking and analysis of the Constitution and America’s founding principles.
Media Library
Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.
Founders’ Library
Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.
Modal body sms goes here.
Email Share
Link copied to clipboard!
Ooops. Link couldn't be copied to clipboard!