stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Post image for Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Seven Worst Anti-Gay Statements

Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Seven Worst Anti-Gay Statements

by David Badash on December 12, 2012

in Legal Issues,Marriage,News

Last night, law professor, writer, and legal commentator Jonathan Turley raised the question many have asked publicly and privately: How is it judicially responsible for a sitting Supreme Court justice to speak publicly about issues the court faces? Justice Antonin Scalia has been talking recently about the issue of same-sex marriage, even days after the Court announced it will hear two marriage cases this term.

If a jurist’s comments on an issue reflect his thinking has already been formed, should he be forced to recuse himself?

And what are those comments Justice Scalia has been making?

Direct from the People for the American Way and their Right Wing Watch blog — which we at The New Civil Rights Movement quote from almost daily — Justice Scalia’ seven worst anti-gay comments:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder
  • …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it’s justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”

For details on each item, head over to Right Wing Watch.

 

Related:

Scalia Says ‘Easy’ To Outlaw Gay Marriage, AKA ‘Homosexual Sodomy’

Justice Scalia Forced To Defend Anti-Gay Opinion To Gay Princeton Freshman

Watch: Gay College Student Who Confronted Scalia Calls Justice’s Comments ‘Absurd’

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 3 comments }

James_M_Martin December 12, 2012 at 11:32 pm

What a disgraceful excuse for a human! I am wondering why, when vetted for the job by congress, no one thought to ask him why he adheres to the unreasonable: centuries if not millenia old superstitions bound up with dogma of the Church of Rome.

Diogenes_Arktos December 13, 2012 at 1:28 am

I do not find his being Roman Catholic a problem. I DO mind that he believes his Roman Catholicism and not solid secular jurisprudence shold justify his rulings.

As a result, James, I think you are asking for the Senate to ask the wrong question. Face facts, at the present time most Senators ascribe to some form of Christianity – the question as you pose it is not going to be asked.

I find it offensive that all Christians are tarred with a broad brush. I am an Episcopalian. It is precisely because I am Christian that I support LGBT rights, including marriage equality.

Coxhere December 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm

I am also an Episcopalian. The Religious Reich fundamentalists have hijacked everything that relates to Christianity: The Bible; Interpretations of The Bible; The Elect; The Righteous; The Redeemed; The Damned; Hearing the Words of The Lord God Jehovah; Speaking for The Lord God Jehovah; The End of the World or Eschatology; The Apocalypse; The Second Coming of Christ or The Parusia; The Judgment, Banishment, and Destruction of the Damned. I see no concerted, organized efforts of non-fundamentalists to wrest away the fundamentalists' monopoly of Christianity and asserting other Christian views or frames of reference (retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, John Shelby Spong, is pretty much a singular voice crying in the wilderness against the Religious Reich's fundamentalism). As a result, I do not find it at all offensive that "all Christians" are tarred (and feathered and run out of town; they need to be). Americans, in general, have come to think that "all Christians" mean the Religious Reich fundamentalists and their fundamentalistics. By this definition—-the Religious Reich fundamentalists damn to hell the rest of Christendom as apostate and "the harlot church"—-it is not a broad brush that does the tarring. It's merely a narrow brush that tars the fundamentalists. By the fundamentalists' definition, we Episcopalians are not "The True Church" and we are not, therefore, being tarred. And for this reason, I participate in slapping a thick coat of hot tar, using that brush—-whatever size—-against the self-righteous lies of the Religious Reich fundamentalism. . If need be, I'll go fetch more brushes and more tar.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: