The opinion in Lawrence v. Texas was handed down on this date in 2003. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, said:
Funny how times change. Now that same-sex marriage is before the Court in two cases, Scalia is singing a different tune:
I'm not aware that anyone has asked the Supreme Court, or any other court, to determine questions of morality, since the particulars of moral behavior vary so widely. It seems to me that what the Court is being asked to determine, as it has in the past, is whether the state has the right to enforce a particular sectarian standard of morality -- because it's a sectarian standard that's at issue in these cases -- on the people as a whole.
Granted, there are certain moral standards that are not only appropriately enforced, they're necessary if a society is to hold together. It's instructive, though, that of the Ten Commandments so beloved of "Christians" in this country, two and a half are actually enshrined in the law: You don't kill the neighbors, you don't take their stuff, and in some circumstances, bearing false witness will land you in really hot water.
Scalia doesn't seem to know the difference between law and morality. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.
(There's been some speculation that Scalia is unhappy with the way the decisions are going in Windsor and Perry, hence his fulmination on the courts and morality. I hope so.)
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.
Funny how times change. Now that same-sex marriage is before the Court in two cases, Scalia is singing a different tune:
With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.
Why?
We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.
In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.
I'm not aware that anyone has asked the Supreme Court, or any other court, to determine questions of morality, since the particulars of moral behavior vary so widely. It seems to me that what the Court is being asked to determine, as it has in the past, is whether the state has the right to enforce a particular sectarian standard of morality -- because it's a sectarian standard that's at issue in these cases -- on the people as a whole.
Granted, there are certain moral standards that are not only appropriately enforced, they're necessary if a society is to hold together. It's instructive, though, that of the Ten Commandments so beloved of "Christians" in this country, two and a half are actually enshrined in the law: You don't kill the neighbors, you don't take their stuff, and in some circumstances, bearing false witness will land you in really hot water.
Scalia doesn't seem to know the difference between law and morality. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.
(There's been some speculation that Scalia is unhappy with the way the decisions are going in Windsor and Perry, hence his fulmination on the courts and morality. I hope so.)
No comments:
Post a Comment