Scalia draws parallels between bans on sodomy, murder

Just days after the Supreme Court announced it would review two high-profile same-sex marriage cases, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia defended his legal writings that draw parallels between sodomy bans and bans against murder.

"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said during an event at Princeton University, the Associated Press reported, in response to a question from a gay student. Scalia was at the school to promote his new book, "Reading Law." He told the student that he wasn't equating sodomy with murder but drawing parallels between bans on both.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia said. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

The Supreme Court announced Friday that next year it will hear arguments over the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as California's same-sex marriage ban, Prop. 8.

• Supreme Court to take up Prop. 8, DOMA
• Gay couples get marriage licenses in Washington state

Scalia, an outspoken conservative, has sided against gay rights in past Supreme Court decisions: He wrote dissents in both Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which struck down anti-sodomy laws, and Romer v. Evans in 1996, which struck down a law forbidding protections against discrimination from applying to gays.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor is promoting her own book, a memoir titled "My Beloved World." The book, according to the AP, doesn't detail her three years on the Supreme Court but instead focuses on her personal history. Sotomayor will discuss the book in an interview to air next month on CBS' "60 Minutes."

The Bronx-born Latina describes her poor upbringing and her accomplishments at Princeton University. She defends affirmative action, which the justice says helps disadvantaged students catch up with their more privileged peers. Sotomayor also reportedly says she decided not to have children in part because of her lifelong fight against diabetes and the fear of dying at an early age.

[eroteme2]

Sodomy is great fun for homosexuals. Might seem a bit disgusting for people who are normal.

[duzmafuzt]

How dare you claim to be normal. You may be in the majority. The majority cannot be allowed to set a standard, allow for flexibility, and promote equality. This monopoly on society (in the USA) has done nothing. Our nation was founded on equality (not individual rights). It has never lived up to it. It is time for the majority of Americans to get on food stamps, unemployment, Social Security, and demand free housing. Women are becoming equal because of governing rulers that use laws to manipulate our livelihoods. We must not stop our advances. True freedom will come, on the wings of taxation, spending, and the pummeling of the individual. We can only do this, when, absolutely, all Americans get a piece of dinner,(for free) at the table of stupidity.

[imnho]

Laws sgould be passed based on either public policy or public safety. Its true that some things that satify those requirements are often considered moral by a majority. Sodomy in private between consenting adults does not create a safety problem. Interference in the private affairs of people without a good reason makes for bad public policy. I don't like it doese not qualify as good public policy

[TimeToEvolve]

How's THAT for an oxymoron. The corporatist activist, homophobic, right wing wacko Scalia with an opinion. Does anyone actually expect anyone to listen to him?

[TimeToEvolve]

How does an evil, crazy, right wing corporate hack get into any job let alone "Supreme" Court justice. He and Thomas have made this entire branch of government an embarrassing stock of the nation and the world. As if America did not have enough to be embarrassed and shocked about.

[inketolstoy]

Luckily we have rational, nonhypocritical progressives like you whose posts of brilliant clarity will serve as a beacon of light to the rest of the world.

[Meezermom1951]

Scalia should recuse himself on this. He has already decided and will not have an open mind to listen and rule honestly by law. He has already set his decision in stone and made it publicly know which should be more than enough to remove him from the bench on this. However we all know he won't. He must get his narrow minded religious views stated.

[sickofwhiners]

He may as well have said,"It's gotta be a crime if it's against the law." Failing the whole time to assume that some laws may not be just or constitutional.

[1pheasant1]

In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, Scalia declared, "nowhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a 'fundamental right.'"


As opposed to heterosexual sodomy, of course.

[Lindag20]

Apparently if heterosexuals do it, it's NOT sodomy in Scalia's world. We ALREADY know how he's going to rule.

[Faramir0028g]

"Faithfulwatcher replies:
The law against homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" is not a moral feeling against the people, it's against the homosexual activity. The human anatomy testifies to designed function."
I am very curious about comment
Faith really has your elbow ever testified? Do any other parts of your speak beside your mouth? Is your rear end sooo fine, that it says touch me?
Inquiring minds want to know

[1pheasant1]

I lost my rear playing Black-Jack in Reno.

[MerrellOBrian64]

I must admit, now that the social war for us gays and lesbians is nearly over, reading all the hater posts is quite humorous. I can't help laughing in the face of all those haters now. It was a hard fought 25 years but, very, very soon, despite Scalia, National Marriage Equality will be the law of the land.
Saying "It isn't really marriage" and all that useless banter, it's just funny. The nation has ALREADY changed. I mean, they keep talking about the 31 "bans" at the state level like it means something. Those bans, with all the time, money, sweat and tears it took to make them will be erased with one Supreme Court decision. Now THAT is awesome!
They'll crawl back in their survivalist dens with their canned goods and shotguns, waiting for Jesus to come and save them. Meanwhile, the real Christians, filled with love, mercy, compassion, kindness, goodness and joy will be on the surface of the planet with us.
Be of great cheer Liberty lovers! If they could have stopped us, it would have been over gays in the military and look how that went! They're harmless really. We've already won.

[mapaxn]

The Constitution clearly states "No laws shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion." That would include ALL religions, not just the ones we're comfortable with (for example, Christianity).

His comments don't surprise me, though. He's already tried to say that the Consitution doesn't protect women or gays either.

I can't believe that there is no way to remove him as a judge. Clearly he does not understand that America was meant to be a secular nation. The only thing separating America from countries like Iran is the Separation of Church and State. Iran was once a secular country that went back to enforcing religious laws. They started stoning women to death soon after.

We think we are safe because we are in America; yet the extreme religious right has become more and more brazen with their attempts to demand national legislation of Christian beliefs. They have wasted taxpayer's time and money trying to make their religion the law of the land; and they started with attacking women just like Iran did. Not enough people are outraged by this; and we WILL head down that path if we don't make it abundantly clear that religious oppression (or oppression based on sex for that matter) will no be tolerated.