Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

the supremes

Justice Scalia Knew This Was Going to Happen

The trademark sass displayed by Justice Antonin Scalia in his DOMA dissent today is not new. Ten years ago to the day, in his pissy Lawrence v. Texas dissent, Scalia warned that the Court's decision to strike down a sodomy law, thereby legalizing consenual gay sex nationwide, would open the floodgates for "the so-called homosexual agenda." He was right.

On June 26, 2003, Scalia made a prescient, if overly broad, prediction:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

He continued:

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.

Plus:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

And so it is.

0