Justice Scalia's Minority Opinion Worth Reading

THIS is only part....but it's a good part and worth the read. It's in response to Kennedy's Majority opinion that pretty much said that anyone that believes in and defends traditional marriage is the same as to.......""dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual." Pretty scathing....but absolutely right on!

Scalia:
"But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."

 

"We might have let the People decide."

Only when progressives think they can win. When "power to the people!" fails in getting them what they want, they default to "power to the courts!".

 

He also wrote this:

He's right. Profoundly right.

 

it wasnt about law, it became personal agenda for them, thats why they couldnt argue or come up with any logical summery
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-marriage-20130627,0,1691314.story

 

Obama's appointed two....on average, a vacancy on the court occurs every 3.75 years.
Another progressive leftists in the White House in 2016 all but guarantees a progressive court...and the death of the long abused US Constitution...including state's sovereignty, individual sovereignty, rights, liberty, and economic freedom.

FORWARD to authoritarian, centrally controlled utopia...."for the common good"

 

Same sex marriage should be left up to the participants. These people just want the same opportunity to be trapped in a miserable life that heterosexuals have suffered through for hundreds of years.

Conservatives and neoconservatives have used their questionable religion to butt in where they have no business. Uniting their fellow homophobes to vote against a life style of which they disapprove. Liberals have taken up the cause only because the religious right is once again trying to impose their version of Christian law on people of different beliefs.

The only people in this issue with an "agenda" are the hypocrites of the right wing. All others are simply trying to peacefully coexist, and live and let live. That is why the courts have gotten involved, to stop more oppression by the Christian religion.

 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights has been beaten up by both sides.

The Left by Utilitarianism ( only considers what is good for the collective with total disregard for individual rights). All they do is claim "this is for the general good" often on the basis of flawed logic or warped perspective and the individual right is trumped.

The Right has adopted utilitarianism as well when it suits them, that and Religion as a tool against individual rights and freedoms.

In general I would say that the Right has done more damage than the left but no point in splitting hairs.

 

When has the left stepped on individual rights (rights specifically guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) to protect what you refer to as "the collective"?

- - - Updated - - -

When has the left stepped on individual rights (rights specifically guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) to protect what you refer to as "the collective"?

 

NSA-Privacy

They are not defending the right to privacy. You can hear quotes from Obama on how "we need to give a little" for security This is utilitarianism BS

Security my backside.

Pot - Has Obama legalized it yet ? Why not ?

There are lots of others and you should be ashamed that you can not figure this out for yourself.

Granted, there are far more obvious examples on the Right. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils Obama gets the nod in a heartbeat.

Neither is a good/ preferable choice though.

 

Conservatives and neoconservatives were quick to accept the invasive nature of the Patriot Act when Dubya was President, it was necessary to make them feel safe in their own homes. At the time it was passed, when liberals condemned the act as government intrusion into our privacy, right-wingers accused liberals (or anyone else opposing the act) of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and being traitors to the U.S.

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait and Bypassed the Profanity Filter >>>The liberal organization, intensely hated by conservatives and neoconservatives, the A.C.L.U. fought against the Patriot Act then and still does, because it was wrong then, and true liberals know it is wrong still.

It is surprising the Congressional Republicans are calling Edward Snowden a traitor, he exposed that Obama was listening in on all private phone calls made by Americans. A scandal that could be used like those of the IRS and Benghazi. But they didn&#8217;t because the GOP plans to return to power and want the Patriot Act, and all of its provisions, as political tools when they are once again in total control of the government.

 

Your post assumes that ALL conservatives are religious, and NO liberals are religious. That's just not true. I am conservative politically, but I am not religious. Gave up organized religion long ago.....although I still believe in God and have faith. I know plenty of Democrats in my family and friends here who do not believe in abortion and are religious. Too often liberals try to place people in categories that have nothing to do with reality.

 

Although I have very little respect for our Supreme Court I'm glad the majority disagreed with Scalia. Chalk one up for good guys.

 

Meanwhile back in reality, the effect of DOMA is indeed one of disparagement, injury, degradation, demeanment, and humiliation. As to whether that effect was intended, I haven't forgotten the things that were said about me when the bill was originally argued.

Yes, people can disagree on the issue of legal marriage without the hostile intentions. This law, how and why it came to be, are however the product of hostile intentions. The hate at the time was palpable, and still often rises to that level.

But what do I know, I'm just a gay man who still can't get married. If you think I'm biased, fine. I guess a lifetime of direct experience with people's anti-gay vitriol mean's nothing at all. I'm supposed to believe that it's either all in my head, or that I'm merely unfortunate to have encountered such "rare" anti-gay behavior in others. Or there's always the "you're just making it up" escape that some people use so they can continue to delude themselves with the idea that the law wasn't used to express disapproval of, and to punish same-sex behavior and relationships.

Pull the other one.

 

You would be right if this happened:

“Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.”

To do so without declaring any other whim of marriage a right would be hypocrisy.

You are wrong though in that the States validating Gay marriage have the right that the actions of their republican form of Government be respected by a neutral government, that benefits for married people be equal, when those recognitions of marriage are only legal because the Federal statues are consistent with the will of the States with regard to what marriage is.

The Senate has confirmed these justices. So blame Republicans who gave advice and consent for justices because they were qualified to keep the trains running on time.

If a State allows Mormons Polygamy, those benefits will have to belong to them as well.

“The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

It was somewhat obvious that after “Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558,” that the Federal government could not discriminate against Gay marriage dignified by a republican form of government, due to States Rights.

We the People have had plenty of time to correct that ruling if the States (Senate) disagreed with it.

Since Article III is as much a part of the Constitution as Article I Section 8, therefore, the ruling (relying upon a previous ruling that could be argued violated States Rights) is constitutional, consequently, without impeachment for “Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558,” they do have the right to decide that case.

Don’t worry, be happy, once the Obamanation’s “craven act” of rejecting freedom speech increases the infiltration of the Trojan Horse of Black Stone Isolators, the Homos will get what Obama’s Prophet MoHamMad ordered to be done to those exceeding all limits and without impeachment we philosophically reject all efforts to denigrate it.

 

When discussing majorities, it's always a matter of perspective.

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were rejected by the Court.

DOMA may have had the support of the majority of Congress, but Prop 8 had the majority of support of California. Prop 8 is more representative of the people's will, whereas DOMA is just representative of the current majority at that time.

In each case, a different majority was overturned by a majority on the Court, but this is a fairly regular occurrence. The majority of people in Southern states supported segregation at one time. That had to be overturned by a majority in Congress and a majority in the Court.

Majorities clearly matter to an extent, because even the Court operates with one, but overall, rights have to be based on maintaining consistency with things like freedom of choice.

 

You say we can disagree with gay marriage without hostile intentions. Then you tell us how. How does one who would like to see traditional marriage and family structure be preserved voice their opinions without you assuming they are being hostile? I'd really like to know....

 

I am thinking that most in favor of gay marriage can't be anything but hostile , I am for the right to marry the person you love , I am also for the church to be secure it its beliefs also, I would turn away from the advocates of SSM if they decide it's time to change the church . We need a way define marriage from both viewpoints.

 

I know a great many people who support gay marriage. But I do not know a single person who thinks churches should be forced to marry gay couples. Granted, the set of people I know is far from scientific, but I really do not think there will be any great movement to force churches to do anything.

 

Tell you how? No. I have no obligation to do the work for you.

And I'm also going to recant my earlier statement. Upon reflection, it's clear to me that those wishing to prevent me from marrying my same-sex spouse are not operating without hostile intent.

The plain fact is that there is no point in us even attempting the discussion, because seeing " traditional marriage and family structure" preserved isn't the goal. The goal is to keep "traditional marriage and family structure" as the only option people can elect without being disadvantaged by the law.

How can I argue in non-hostile support of my own interests without you leaping to the false conclusion that I am hostile to the existence of "traditional marriages and family structures"? I am not. I think they're important. But I also don't see this as an either/or situation, where our society can only support one kind of marriage or family structure. You clearly do see it as an either/or situation. That makes your goals hostile to my interests. I am not therefore persuaded that your intent is not necessarily free of hostility, regardless of how politely the arguments are presented.

So I will have to admit that I was wrong. We can't disagree no the issue of legal marriage without hostile intent, because opponents' position is one hostile to my interests, and I therefore have to assume their intent is, as well.

 

I don't think the majority opinion "pretty much said" that at all. It is specifically references the circumstances surrounding DOMA. And at the time, when DOMA was enacted into law, the intention of degradation was there. Does that mean it will always be there? No. But the law had that intention, and it had the effect, which matters more.

 

I'm surprised we're not hearing more from right wingers crying in their beer. I guess they're waiting for church Sunday to preach from the pulpit on this one.

 

Hmm, they tried to ban guns in certain areas (DC and Chicago and California), they make hate speech laws banning free speech, they advocate for campaign finance laws which limit freedom of speech.

 

no one supporting gay marriage is advocating that churches be forced to perform them. And there is no way that will ever happen.

 

Quite often with the 2nd amendment right. Members of the right have tried to step on individual rights (namely the 1st) often, but those are an outside group, kind of like those on the left who have called for ridiculous things (like banning the N-word from the dictionary) aren't representative of the group. Impeding on 2nd amendment rights, however, is representative of the left, and that's the only clear Constitutional right that has been frequently stepped on by one side. I, of course, say clear because there are a lot of extended or perceived rights in the Constitution that aren't there (for example, the right to privacy, a word that is never mentioned in the Constitution).

 

As I thought. So, you don't really think that everyone has the right to their own opinions/beliefs without attributing it to their being "hostile." It's just like Scalia said: "Hate they neighbor, or come along with us." That's the left's only choice on this issue. That's akin to the right saying to those on the left on the issue of abortion: "Hate babies, or come along with us." I bet that's not something those on the left would agree with.

I don't even know what your last sentence means. I DO know that speaking for myself it's all about keeping "traditional marriage and the family structure" in place.

Really? So, you support two classes of marriage?

Hmmm. That's a quite strange view, IMO. But if it's yours, then it's yours. I assume that means to be consistent....that you would agree that any issue liberals don't agree with conservatives on means they have hostile intent, then?

That doesn't allow for differences of opinion and beliefs, does it?